The Assembly met at noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Speaker’s Business: Ruling on Suspension of Sittings

Mr Cedric Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I have first to respond to a point of order from last week.
At the sitting on Monday 20 May, Mr David Ford raised a point of order concerning the decision of the Deputy Speaker to suspend the sitting, by leave of the House, for five minutes. This was as a result of the Minister of the Environment’s not being in his place to move the Second Stage of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
Mr Ford raised the issue in the light of my decision on 13 May to declare that a motion in his name would fall as he was not in his place to move the motion, but subsequently to suspend business for five minutes when a Member was not in his place to move his motion, because not to have done so would have meant the collapsing of all the business of the day. Mr Ford said that the decision of the Deputy Speaker on 20 May highlighted procedural inconsistency in handling the circumstances surrounding suspension of proceedings, and sought definitive guidance on when business on the Order Paper should or should not be suspended.
Members will be aware that the procedural convention has been that if a Minister or Member is not in his or her place to move an item of business, then that business falls and the next item of business is taken. The decisions to suspend the sittings on 13 May and 20 May were made in an effort to be helpful to the House, particularly on the first occasion, when the business of the rest of the day, save Question Time, would have collapsed. On the second occasion, the concern of the Deputy Speaker was to not obstruct legislation and other matters, those having been thin on the ground in the House. These were efforts to be helpful to the House, but they clearly introduced inconsistencies. I accept that in the wider scheme of things that can be unhelpful, albeit that the attempt at the time was to be helpful.
To avoid a recurrence of that, and after discussion with the Business Committee, I intend that in future the procedural convention of the House will be enforced as consistently as is possible, and that is the best that I can do. In doing so, I caution Ministers and Members about their responsibility for ensuring that they are in their places at the appropriate times to move items of business. It is a great discourtesy to the House to do otherwise, and to minimise the risk of such a situation occurring, Members may wish to consider putting more than one name to motions.
I hope that that clarifies the situation. I and the others who fulfil the role of Speaker and Deputy Speaker do our best to ensure not only a degree of order but also that the Assembly presents itself as well as possible to those we represent. However, we cannot do that on our own, and even with the help of others, it is sometimes difficult enough. I accept the Member’s concern and rule as I have done.

Ministerial Pledge of Office

Mr Speaker: Mr Wilson, you had a point of order.

Mr Cedric Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During a BBC programme that was broadcast live from the Assembly last week, the former DUP Minister Mr Campbell intimated that he had either not taken the pledge or had taken a different form of pledge than that required under the terms of annex A, strand one, of the Belfast Agreement. Will you confirm that all past and presently serving Ministers have taken that pledge and are honour and legally bound to comply with its requirement to work to implement all aspects of the Executive’s Programme for Government?

Mr Speaker: I cannot speak about the particular circumstance to which the Member refers, but I can say that all Ministers who take the Pledge of Office, whether they take it in the Chamber or elsewhere, must take the same Pledge of Office: that is clear. A facility was made available for nominees to ministerial office to take the Pledge of Office outside the Chamber to ensure that there was no delay in their taking up their positions. As such occasions sometimes arise at the beginning of a recess or such like, arrangements were made for it to be done outside the Chamber.
However, because this is an important legal as well as political matter, when a Minister takes the Pledge of Office in the Chamber it is recorded in Hansard as a matter of public record. When a Minister or a nominee takes the Pledge of Office outside the Chamber, it is done in the Speaker’s office in the presence of the Clerk to the Assembly or the most senior Clerk available, and the procedure is conducted in writing. That is to say, the nominee is asked to give verbal assent and to sign the relevant forms that identify the pledge. There was no difference in respect of Ministers from any particular party who took the pledge inside or outside the Chamber. Those documents are available for anyone who wishes to verify that that was the case, in the same way that he can verify from Hansard, and there is no reason for such papers not being available to ensure that everything is done properly and is in order. I confirm that there is no legal difference between taking the pledge inside or outside the Chamber — Members could not legally be nominated successfully unless they were prepared to take that pledge.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is nothing in the pledge to do with swearing allegiance to the Executive or to fulfilling the agreement — nothing whatsoever.

Mr Speaker: It is not for me to go into what is in the pledge and what is not. What is there is a matter of public record, and Members, or anyone outside who is interested to see what the pledge consists of, can read it. It is a public document and available.

Mr Cedric Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The pledge is a matter of public record, and I advise Dr Paisley to look at paragraphs (c), (d), and (f) of annex A, strand one, of the agreement. It is clear that there is an obligation to work to implement the programme when agreed by the Executive, whether nominees made the pledge inside or outside the Chamber.

Mr Speaker: Order. The opportunity was taken to raise a point of order. I made it quite clear that these are all matters of public record. Members of the House and the public can read them; they are all available. I am not prepared to entertain getting into some kind of political business here. A point of order was raised, and I have tried to give a proper ruling on it.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a further point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a point of order. I want to remind the House that the DUP Members who took their seats — not as members of the Executive but who took office — made it very clear on the first occasion how they took that oath. That is a matter of record.

Mr Speaker: I can only supervise whether people legally undertake their responsibilities. People have done things with their fingers crossed in other places and circumstances, but that still did not alter the fact that they carried out those actions. I cannot enter into any further discussion on the matter. As far as I am concerned, the Ministers were appointed duly and in order, took up their responsibilities and, as far as I can ascertain, fulfilled those responsibilities.

Public Procurement Policy

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on public procurement policy.

Dr Sean Farren: With permission, I want to make a statement on behalf of the Executive on public procurement policy. Members will be aware that in November 2000, and in line with commitments in the Programme for Government, the Executive agreed to establish a procurement review team to review public procurement policy and purchasing arrangements in Departments and their non-departmental public bodies.
The procurement review team’s report was issued for public consultation last September to over 400 individuals and organisations. Members of the team also met with the Committee for Finance and Personnel to discuss their findings and recommendations. Team members considered the responses to the consultation and views put forward by the Committee, and they were given the opportunity to clarify or amend their original recommendations.
The Executive have recognised the need for a more strategic approach to the development and implementation of procurement policy to ensure that Executive procurement expenditure, which is around £1·2 billion a year, was being spent in the most effective and efficient manner and to ensure that the policy had due regard to equality obligations. In today’s climate of tight budgets and ever-increasing demand, it is critical that the Executive make optimum use of the resources available to them.
The Executive have, therefore, agreed to a revised public procurement policy, and they plan to initiate more than 70 measures over the period to March 2005 to implement that policy. Those measures are aimed at greater central guidance, collaboration and aggregation of procurement, with the objective of delivering increasing and sustainable value for money savings in the years to come.
The four main areas covered by the measures relate to policy; organisational structures; procurements processes and practice; and integration. I intend to spend a few minutes on the key points in each of those areas, starting with policy.
The definition adopted by the Executive describes public procurement as:
"the process of acquisition, usually by means of a contractual arrangement after public competition, of goods, services, works and other supplies by the public service".
The acquisition process spans the whole life cycle from initial conception and definition of the needs of the public service through to the end of the useful life of an asset or the end of the contract.
Both conventionally funded and more innovative types of purchases, such as public-private partnerships and private finance initiatives, are included in the definition, as is the use of the private sector to deliver services previously delivered directly by the public sector — otherwise known as contracting-out of services.
The Executive also adopted 12 principles that will be the basis of Northern Ireland procurement policy in the future. Departments, non-departmental public bodies and public corporations will be guided by those principles. They include transparency in policy and its delivery; integrity, fairness and consistency when dealing with suppliers and potential suppliers; purchasing by competition unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary; responsiveness to the needs and aspirations of the community served by the procurement; compliance with European Union and other legal requirements; procurement staff being effective in carrying out their work, meeting the commercial, regulatory and socio-economic goals of Government in a balanced manner appropriate to each requirement, and carrying out procurement as cost-effectively as possible; and accounting officers and their equivalents in other bodies continuing to be personally accountable for procurement expenditure. Where appropriate, as part of the process of developing and implementing procurement policy, other Government economic and social policies will be integrated into procurement policy rather than cutting across it.
During the consultation process, some respondents expressed the view that the principles should contain an explicit reference to equality. While the Executive noted those concerns, Ministers believe that the principles are sufficiently clear, and it is worth repeating that the equality obligations of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are already a duty on Northern Ireland public bodies in implementing procurement policy.
However, in applying the 12 principles and our equality obligations in procurement policy, public bodies need to bear in mind that the primary objective of the policy is best value for money. That concept is central to public procurement policy. The Executive have not adopted a narrow definition, but have defined it as
"the optimum combination of whole life cost and quality (or fitness for purpose) to meet the customer’s requirements."
Members should note that that definition encompasses and sums up the 12 principles and allows for the inclusion, as appropriate, of social, economic and environmental goals in the procurement process.
In adopting the 12 principles, the Executive acknowledge that they will have certain implications for the development of the strategy required to implement the new procurement policy. For example, wider economic, social and environmental strategies and initiatives of the Executive should become more closely integrated into the policy. In respect of strategic procurements, and policy in general, public bodies should ensure that there is appropriate consultation with members of the public who will be directly affected by the outcome of the procurement, and with the wider community and other stakeholders in the procurement system.
To optimise efficiency gains, greater emphasis should be placed on integrating the North/South, as well as the UK and Europe-wide, procurement markets. There should be greater collaboration between Northern Ireland public bodies to meet the wider social, economic and environmental goals of procurement policy.
There is an urgent need to develop better management information systems to enable costs and savings to be measured and reported, and to make for more informed decision-making on procurement and equality matters.
Given the financial importance of procurement policy, both in terms of total spend and in relation to the Executive’s budget, the Executive have agreed that a procurement board should be established and given responsibility for the development, dissemination and co-ordination of procurement policy and practice for the Northern Ireland public sector. The board will be responsible to the Executive and accountable to the Assembly.
I shall chair the board in my capacity as Minister of Finance and Personnel, and membership will comprise, among others, the 11 departmental permanent secretaries. That high-level membership from each Department will ensure that there is compliance with the agreed policies and procedures in all Departments, their agencies, non-departmental public bodies and public corporations.
A central procurement directorate has been established to support the procurement board’s work, and a new director will be appointed. In formulating procurement policy and practices for the board, the new directorate will consult staff from several centres that have specialist procurement expertise across the public sector.
The Executive will consider the interface between that new approach to procurement and the infrastructure investment issues that will fall to the new strategic investment body. However, the principle is clear that the strategic investment body will play a core role in planning and implementing capital investment, including public-private partnerships. Much detail must be considered and agreed before the new body can come fully into being, and the general approach to procurement policy must be established and advanced in the meantime.
The procurement board will be responsible for ensuring that a wide range of operational processes and practices are introduced as appropriate. The aim is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of procurement activities for contracting authorities and suppliers.
The Executive will integrate economic, social and environmental policies within the new public procurement policy. Most respondents to the public consultation on the procurement review team’s report accepted the need for integration. The integration of social policy drew the most comment, especially a proposed pilot scheme to help the unemployed return to work. The main reservations were that the scheme would increase costs to the contracting authority and that, as is outlined in the report, the scheme may prove difficult to implement.
The Executive acknowledged those concerns and recognised that the integration of social policy is difficult in the context of European Union and international procurement law. Nevertheless, they have decided to proceed with the development and implementation of the pilot to test whether those concerns are real, and whether the proposal is worthwhile and workable. The pilot scheme will cover 20 construction or service contracts — at least one will come from each Department — and will last two years. It will not proceed until the details have been agreed with the procurement board. Before that, there will be discussions with the representatives of the affected industries, namely the construction and service sectors, and the Equality Commission, to ensure that the scheme is workable. The results of the pilot will be reported to the Executive to determine whether the policy will be mainstreamed.
Similar issues are under consideration by my Executive Colleagues Sir Reg Empey and Carmel Hanna. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has recently taken receipt of the west Belfast jobs task force report, and the Department for Employment and Learning is close to concluding the work of the task force on employability and long-term unemployment. In moving ahead with the pilot project that arises from the new procurement policy, I shall liaise with my Colleagues to ensure, as far as possible, consistency of approach.
Other integration issues that the Executive have agreed that the procurement board should be tasked with introducing are encouraging and promoting the use of special contract arrangements to help disabled workshops; environmental purchasing; actions to assists small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to compete more effectively for procurement contracts; post-contract award mechanisms to provide assurance that contract conditions are adequately monitored, including an internal mechanism for considering and resolving complaints by third parties that contract conditions have not been honoured; and the development of a database to assess the integration policy’s success.
A key area that was highlighted during consultation and in discussions with the Committee for Finance and Personnel was that of ensuring the compliance of public sector organisations and, in respect of anti-discrimination legislation, of suppliers. Although a few respondents argued strongly in favour of legislative compliance, the Executive agreed that legislation was not necessary to ensure that Departments and their non-departmental public bodies complied, because implementation can largely be achieved by means of administrative action through the membership of the procurement board. However, the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 would need to be amended to enable that sector to comply with the proposals on integration.
The district councils’ different and separate framework of accountability must be recognised. Under existing legislation, compliance is voluntary. The procurement review team’s opinion was that some uncertainty existed in current Northern Ireland legislation as to the extent to which the award of procurement contracts is subject to a requirement not to discriminate. The Executive have agreed that procurement legislation should state unambiguously that direct and indirect discrimination are prohibited on the grounds included in current Northern Ireland anti-discrimination provisions, and should allow for such provisions in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
Moreover, equivalent sanctions similar to those contained in the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 will be introduced to prevent firms found guilty by a tribunal or a court of persistent and recalcitrant breaches of anti-discrimination legislation from benefiting from public procurement contracts. The Executive agreed that those matters should be covered in the single equality Bill.
To develop the public procurement policy, an equality impact assessment has been carried out, as is required under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The report stresses the limited quantitative data available on which to base the assessment. Using quantitative data and other sources of information brought to our attention during the public consultation, my Department, having consulted the Equality Unit, has concluded that the new procurement policy will not directly or indirectly discriminate against any of the categories included in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Indeed, the policy could have a positive impact on equality of opportunity with regard to religious belief, political opinion, gender and disability. Moreover, the proposals are in line with the Executive’s policy on targeting disadvantage and social need.
The procurement review team’s report was issued to more than 400 individuals and organisations for public consultation, and the policy that the Executive adopted incorporates all the recommendations contained in the revised report. The Executive have, therefore, agreed that they do not consider it appropriate to repeat the consultation process. However, given that the Executive have approved the broad thrust of the policy only, my Department is content to receive comments on how the policy might best be implemented.
I hope that this statement has been helpful to Members in highlighting the main issues involved in the new procurement policy, and the way forward. I shall issue a copy of the full policy document to Members shortly. I look forward to chairing the first meeting of the procurement board, which is scheduled for early July. Policy implementation as it develops will require the co-operation and support of my ministerial Colleagues if we are to achieve the optimum level of efficiencies and savings for the public sector. There is much to be accomplished, and, as I said earlier, the new processes and practices will be implemented up until March 2005. A successful outcome would contribute greatly to assuring the general public that every effort is being made to ensure value for money from this substantial element of Executive expenditure.

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Committee welcomes the implementation of a co-ordinated procurement policy, particularly the setting up of a board chaired by the Minister. It is important that departmental activity is co-ordinated so that each does not operate alone.
What savings will result from the procedure? Will it end select tendering, which discriminated against many suppliers so that they found it impossible to get onto the select list? I welcome the proposal to support small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and I hope that it will increase the number of local suppliers. Will the Minister explain the proposed pilot projects in more detail?

Dr Sean Farren: I record my appreciation of the work of the Committee for Finance and Personnel during deliberations on the matter.
With regard to savings, there are signs that if we were to become as efficient as our counterpart across the water, we could save up to £24million over three years. It may be unwise to specify a precise target until the board is in operation and the new procedures are in place; however, that record of achievement provides us with a goal. The estimate of £24 million is a scaled comparison of what would be saved in our circumstances. It will be up to the board, working with the new director and his colleagues, to set targets, which I hope they will be able to detail to the House soon.
In supporting SMEs, we are required to operate within the public procurement parameters set by the European Union. However, if we want to benefit from our membership of the European Union, we must accept that we are working in a single market and that opportunities to tender for contracts in Northern Ireland must be open to others beyond our boundaries. Nonetheless, it has been Government practice for some time to make local suppliers aware of opportunities. InterTradeIreland is bringing suppliers, North and South, to the attention of Government buyers in both parts of the island so that our suppliers can avail of contracts in the South, and vice versa. That applies also to suppliers across the water, but we are anxious to ensure that our local suppliers maximise the opportunities that are available to them. The procurement directorate will intensify initiatives to bring local suppliers in touch with Government buyers.
Details of the pilot projects are not yet available. However, recommendations are being made about how the Government can stimulate economic development in areas such as west and north Belfast. The task force in west Belfast has reported to my Colleague, Sir Reg Empey, and the task force on employability and long-term unemployment is about to report to my Colleague, Carmel Hanna. It is likely that the latter report will recommend how we might use the means at our disposal to address the needs of the unemployed more effectively.
The west Belfast task force’s recommendations are available, and we are anxious to see how we can use procurement opportunities to address some of the needs identified. We will be discussing with agencies, employers, trade unions and training agencies, where appropriate, to agree on pilot projects that would be most effective and enable us to learn relevant lessons.

Mr Roy Beggs: Does the Minister agree that the administrative cost of the new proposal should be minimal so that savings, rather than additional costs, accrue?
Does he recognise the dangers to the Assembly of procurement policies undertaken in euros, which would not relate to departmental budgets? Will he therefore confirm that procurement will be carried out in sterling?

Dr Sean Farren: Overall procurement policy must be informed by a best-value approach. I assure the Member that that point will be borne in mind in administrative structures as well as in procurement practice.
I am not sure how the euro or any other currency will affect our procurement policies. Those who tender for contracts will know that we are in a sterling area. However, people from other parts of Europe may submit bids in euros. The bids will be assessed using the sterling equivalent. I doubt that we could prescribe the currency to be used in tenders. I imagine that people will bear in mind the local currency.

Mr Alex Attwood: I welcome the Minister’s statement and, in particular, the Executive’s adoption of the integration of economic, social and environmental policies within the new public procurement policy. As an expression of the integration policy, one noteworthy proposal is that to develop and implement a pilot scheme of 20 construction and service contracts to last two years each, with at least one contract from each Department. Annoucements have yet to be made in respect of the west Belfast task force. Will the Minister concur that any pilot projects awarded by the procurement board, which are designed to assist unemployed people to return to work, should be based where unemployment is an enduring issue?

Dr Sean Farren: As I said earlier, that part of the procurement policy will raise several questions. Indeed, the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel has already asked such a question, and I would be surprised if there were not more on that point. The Executive believe that they have an obligation to coherently and comprehensively address their policies in respect of social and environmental issues, and to do so across all of their responsibilities. That is an example of the Executive taking their responsibilities seriously.
The precise details of the pilot schemes are not yet worked out. However, I will outline some of the thinking that is currently being developed in the Department of Finance and Personnel. For example, it is proposed that a contractor will be required to submit a plan with his tender, indicating how the firm will use the unemployed in the work of the contract, including work carried out by subcontractors. Failure to submit a plan will exclude the tender from further consideration.
The successful firm will be required to comply with the plan during the term of the contract. Failure to do so will mean that appropriate penalties are applied. The pilot scheme will take place over a two-year period, and will require about 20 works and service contracts to enable a proper assessment of its value and to fully address any teething problems. At the end of the two-year period, the results of the pilot will be reported to the Executive to determine whether the policy should be mainstreamed.
Obviously, if the unemployed — in particular, the long-term unemployed — are targeted, the contracts that are identified for inclusion in the pilot will be, in many cases, contracts that relate to significant pockets of unemployment — in particular, long-term unemployment. Broadly, that is the kind of thinking that is being pursued. I will return to the House with information when the details have been decided.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: What is the difference between the principles currently being exercised for procurement, and the Minister’s 12 new principles? Does the Minister suggest that to date there has been no transparency in policy and delivery, no integrity, fairness or consistency, no purchasing by competition, no responsiveness to the needs and aspirations of the community, and no compliance with European Commission and other legal requirements?
He has advanced 12 principles. He should be able to tell the House plainly how those principles differ from the present policy. He briefly mentioned the EC. However, the EC is all-important, because — as the Minister knows — it has certain legal requirements. Money must be spent in order to meet them. Therefore, as the Assembly considers those matters, it must keep new law in mind — removing the focus from Northern Ireland and dealing with European law.
Those of us who are in the business of politics are approached continually by firms that point out the difficulties that result from EU laws, especially in this field.
How much will the new directorate cost? What salary will the newly appointed director be paid? How many more Assembly task forces will there be, despite the fact that work on the task in hand has not been accomplished? Surely some work should be completed by now.
This is perhaps the most important question: will the Minister promise the Assembly that he will initiate a full debate on the matter when he produces his other documents, so that we will be able to ask questions?

Dr Sean Farren: The Member asked a nest of questions. I trust that I will remember most of them.
On the Member’s final point, a consultation process has been under way for some time, during which no Member was precluded from initiating a debate. The Member’s party is represented on the Committee for Finance and Personnel, which has discussed the matter in some depth.
The public consultation process afforded many opportunities to make contributions, from inside and outside the House, to policy development. If the Member wishes to table a motion on the matter, it is up to the Business Committee to decide when that debate might take place.
Brevity of reference — if brevity describes my reference to the European Union framework — should not be taken as an indication that the European procurement framework lacks significance. We operate within that framework, which requires that opportunities to tender for public contracts be afforded to suppliers across the European Union. The Executive and the Administration accept that obligation.
Notwithstanding that obligation, and without violating the principles of the framework, we want to be proactive and ensure that our suppliers are made fully aware of the opportunities to compete and tender for and win contracts.
It is not for me to determine the number of task forces. I am responsible only for the task forces in my Department. If it is necessary for issues to be reviewed, task forces may be the most appropriate method. There may also be other review mechanisms. It is necessary, especially at the early stages of devolution, to conduct in-depth reviews of the practices, policies and legislation that we have inherited. Otherwise, we might be rightly accused of simply implementing what was there in the past. I doubt if that is the way that the Member, who has always been a keen proponent of devolution, would want to see devolution progress.
I trust that there will be many opportunities to review other aspects of Government policy and practice. With respect to his question on costs, I do not have the precise figure for the directorate and its associated administrative arrangements. The director has been appointed at grade three level with a salary in excess of £60,000. I believe that I have addressed all the questions from the Member.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Will the Member give way?

Dr Sean Farren: No. If I have not addressed all the Member’s questions, Hansard will reveal that, and I will reply to those in writing.

Mr Seamus Close: I draw particular attention to what the Minister said about the Executive, in initiating the new procurement policy, introducing more than 70 measures to be put in place between March 2000 and March 2005. The Minister went on to state explicitly that the Executive are adopting 12 principles as the basis for future Northern Ireland procurement policy. In other words, something is to be done that has not been done in the past.
I hoped that the hallmark of good Government in the public sector would be value for money, to be achieved through principles such as transparency, integrity, fairness, accountability, effectiveness and efficiency — the same principles that the Minister is trying to tell me are new. Can the Minister advise me which of those principles is currently not in use, and why?
I noted the Minister’s comments on potential savings. According to the Minister, public procurement has a market of £1·2 billion a year and he mentioned potential savings of £24 million over three years. He can correct me if those figures are wrong. If my mathematics are correct, that represents a saving of 2% over three years — for 70 new initiatives and the list of principles, some of which I doubt are new because they should be already in place. There is, therefore, much camouflage and verbiage in the Minister’s statement and, ultimately, not much product. Does the Minister not agree that a cost benefit analysis should be carried out in respect of anything done in the House to ensure that value for money is clearly demonstrated?

Dr Sean Farren: The Member’s question reminded me of Dr Paisley’s first question. Given that Dr Paisley asked so many questions, it slipped my mind. However, one of them was almost the same question as that asked by Mr Close.
I have not claimed that all of the principles are new; many have been the basis for operating procurement practices. There is, however, a new emphasis in respect of integrating the principles so that future policy can be more coherent and targeted. There are some new principles, and I single out consistency, responsiveness and integration as being new or as receiving new emphasis. The overall approach will be judged on value for money and on how we contribute to the social and other cross-cutting principles upon which the Executive’s policies are based. It is to be hoped that the savings will be greater than those anticipated in the informal target that I suggested at the outset.
Mr Close is a member of the Committee that addressed the issue in considerable depth. The information supplied to me does not indicate whether the questions were posed in the same way to my officials during the consultation.

Mr Robert McCartney: Although I thank the Minister for making the statement, it leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Will the Minister confirm that the basic premise for the initiative is the belief that the £1·2 billion procurement expenditure was not being spent in the most effective and efficient manner and that the Executive were not making optimum use of the resources available to them? If that is not the case, what is the justification for the initiative?
The Minister has been loath to reply to a brutally leading question from Mr Beggs about the minimal costs of administration. He ignored that question and now tells Members that there is no estimate of what additional administrative costs will result from the establishment of the central procurement directorate and procurement board. Is the Minister telling the House that no cost analysis of any kind has been made; that there is no suggestion that fresh administrative staff and bureaucrats will be recruited rather than seconded from existing Departments? Will the Minister first confirm that the assessment of possible savings is nebulous, as it is based on a comparison of much greater public expenditure on the mainland, which statistically cannot be indicative of cost savings here and secondly the cost savings, as estimated, are minimal in relation to uncosted expenditure?
Will the Minister guarantee that Northern Ireland firms that tender for Government procurement in Northern Ireland will be given preference? Will he state how many, if any, tenders for Government procurement in the Republic are given to Northern Ireland firms?

Dr Sean Farren: Once again, I am faced with a series of questions. I therefore apologise in advance if I do not answer all of them. Mr Speaker, you will appreciate the difficult situation in which Ministers are placed when a plethora of questions are posed.
European Union regulations require us to be open to tenders from across the EU. The preferential treatment to which Mr McCartney referred is not open to us. As I said in answer to an earlier question, if we want to have the benefit of a single market and remain assured that our suppliers can tender for contracts elsewhere — and I am sure that all Members want our suppliers to win contracts elsewhere — the same opportunities must be afforded to suppliers from elsewhere that tender for contracts in Northern Ireland.
I underlined the fact that the Administration — going back to before devolution — has been involved in making local suppliers aware of the opportunities in the whole range of Government contracts. They have been made aware of the standards required, the likely quantities required and the general conditions of Government contracts so that they can make their bids as competitive as others.
Several people have asked whether we were operating effectively and fairly prior to this, implying that if we were, it may not have been necessary to review the process. We are always being urged, not just in the Assembly but also in life, to do better. To do so, we must examine our progress and the way in which we are operating whatever we are being urged to improve.
The Executive believe that it was necessary to improve procurement practices, which had been operating on a disparate basis across Departments, public corporations and non-departmental public bodies. The Executive had a well-founded belief that the coherence needed to maximise the opportunities for obtaining best value for money and the best goods and services was not being achieved. Providing a more coherent, centralised approach to policy development will not be a major operation that will take over the responsibilities of various Departments for procurement. That approach will deliver better value, and, as Ministers report to the House, it will be tested over time. Ministers of Finance and Personnel in particular will have that responsibility and will be open to scrutiny. If the savings that have been indicated, and best value for money, are not achieved, we will be reminded of this debate and the points that have been made.
Mr McCartney also raised questions about the involvement of companies and suppliers from south of the border in supplying to our Departments and agencies. I do not have those figures to hand. However, InterTradeIreland has been active in highlighting the opportunities for our suppliers in the South and for Southern suppliers here. I trust that the Member welcomes opportunities for our suppliers to compete for public contracts in the South.
If Hansard shows that I have overlooked any important questions —[Interruption].

Mr Robert McCartney: What are the costs?

Dr Sean Farren: Mr Speaker, a ruling is needed on the number of questions that can be asked. I understand that Members are allowed to ask one question. If I am asked 10 questions, it is understandable that I do not remember each one.

Mr Speaker: On several occasions I have ruled that if Members ask more than one question, there is no requirement on the Minister to answer all the questions. Members may choose to ask several questions, but they cannot then comment on which question the Minister chooses to answer, whether it is because he or she remembers it, or for any other reason. If Members have a particular question they wish to ask, they would be well advised to put that question, rather than a whole series. The Minister may say that a series of questions is a burden, but it is also an opportunity, because he or she can then choose which questions to respond to. That is simply the nature of the process.

Mr Robert McCartney: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I do not normally take points of order on ministerial statements.

Mr Robert McCartney: The question was put three times by three different Members.

Mr Speaker: The Member has experience of Westminster, and he knows that not just three times, but at three successive Question Times, questions can be put to which Ministers find ways of not responding. However, my advice to the House is that if there is a particular question that Members wish to ask, they ask only that question. It is then much more difficult for the Minister not to answer it. If Members ask a series of questions, they should not be surprised if the Minister chooses to take advantage of that or if his memory inadvertently chooses to take advantage of that.

Mr Robert McCartney: I am happy that the point has been made.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I will take the Member’s point of order at the end.

Mr David McClarty: I thank the Minister for his statement. My question revolves around a point made by Alex Attwood earlier about the engagement of unemployed labour. Does the Minister agree that it is unwise to engage untrained and unskilled workers — particularly in the construction industry, where construction sites are inherently dangerous, especially for untrained people? Does he further agree that it would be better to use public resources to put in place arrangements to provide proper training facilities for the unemployed? Finally, will the Minister give a commitment to consult fully with appropriate bodies, such as the Construction Employers Federation, before any recommendation is made to the Assembly?

Dr Sean Farren: I can give assurances on each of those questions. It is inappropriate for untrained people to be in any form of employment. That is why I made it clear in my statement that there will be full consultation with all appropriate interests. However, we must remember that the objective is to further key social and environmental policies, as deemed appropriate and likely to be effective, through the Government’s considerable spending power, and Members must appreciate that. In taking forward these pilot projects we will not be seeking to force the employment of untrained workers at all. We will try to ensure that appropriate training is put in place.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I too welcome the Minister’s statement. However, all too often procurement is thought of as a policy issue, with a perception that it applies only to big companies. We should promote local sourcing, which has already been mentioned, and local business exchanges. Is there anything in the new approach that will lend specific assistance to medium and small businesses here?

Dr Sean Farren: I assure the Member that we will do all in our power to ensure that local suppliers, which, for the most part, are small- and medium-sized enterprises, are aware of what is required in terms of cost and quality. The assistance available to them will be for other Departments, or, specifically, for the procurement directorate, to provide, rather than my Department. Nonetheless, we are anxious to ensure that local suppliers take maximum advantage of the considerable opportunities that exist with Government expenditure to win contracts and develop their enterprises. The point about more direct forms of assistance needs to be addressed to other Ministers — most particularly the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

Mr Peter Weir: The Minister’s statement refers to a pilot scheme. He has suggested that there is a belief that the integration of social policy may run contrary to either EU law or international procurement law. Given that belief is it not foolhardy to continue with a pilot scheme that could leave Departments vulnerable either to EU enforcement or to litigation by disgruntled companies? How can he ensure that when companies tender for those pilot schemes they do not try to fiddle the system and gain advantages by taking on long-term unemployed people on a short-term basis for the duration of the contract? If social policy is to be brought into procurement decisions, how can the Minister guarantee the long-suffering taxpayers in Northern Ireland that there is value for money in procurement?

Dr Sean Farren: The details of the project have still to be finalised, so it is not possible to answer the Member’s points with precision. An announcement will be made today about our policy approach.
It is normal practice to state what a policy will be, and then to highlight the areas that it will affect. It is the responsibility of those who will implement the policy to detail how it will affect those areas. Members who think that they know better than everybody else in the House should not snigger or make snide comments about the matter. We are aware of our obligations on EU Directives, and we can develop procurement policies that take account of social policies. We are not inhibited from proceeding with the pilots, although the Member suggested that we might be.

Mr P J Bradley: Wearing my agricultural hat, does the Minister share the concern of the agriculture industry that Government food purchases for schools, hospitals and departmental canteens are usually imported and do not match the standards of local quality-assured products? That practice is questionable with regard to health, and it offers no support to local producers.

Dr Sean Farren: I would be concerned if food were being procured that did not meet the required quality standards or take into account health considerations. Therefore, I would seek advice on the nature of the terms and conditions that apply to procurement practices in the sectors that the Member identified. I would want assurances that quality was a specified condition, and if the food were found to be unsatisfactory, the matter would have to be addressed. I thank the Member for raising an important question that needs further investigation.

Mr Maurice Morrow: The Minister’s statement points out that
"the primary objective of the policy is ‘ best value for money’."
However, he does not inform the House how that will be achieved, an issue that has been queried on several occasions. If the Minister is not prepared to tell the House how that will be achieved, will he assure Members that he will give them that information in writing, or at least place it in the Assembly Library, so that it can be scrutinised?
The statement continues by saying that
"in order to optimise efficiency gains, greater emphasis should be placed on integrating the North/South … procurement markets".
What comfort will firms in Northern Ireland take from the Minister’s statement, particularly if they are paying off workers, only to find that businesses south of the border are securing contracts here? Should firms here not be given priority?
The Minister said that the proposed approach would be compatible with section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. That section does not deal with best value; it is concerned with political correctness.

Dr Sean Farren: I do not accept that equality issues, as the Member seems dismissively to claim, relate to political correctness. Affording equality of opportunity to all our citizens is a fundamental principle and a requirement of the Good Friday Agreement and legislation on the matter. It must be inherent in all aspects of Government policy and practice, and we must clearly demonstrate that.
With respect to the Member’s initial question on best value, I said later in my statement that the concept is central to public procurement policy, but the Executive have not adopted a narrow definition. They defined it as
"the optimum combination of whole life cost and quality (or fitness for purpose) to meet the customer’s requirements."
Those criteria must be applied to every contract so that we can demonstrate always that best value for the public’s money has been achieved. Therefore, we are not shying away from the question of best value.
I refer Mr Morrow to my previous answers relating to Northern Irish suppliers. Suppliers, North and South, operate within the European framework. Suppliers from the South are entitled to bid for Government contracts in Northern Ireland, as suppliers here are entitled to bid for contracts in the South of Ireland. Indeed, suppliers can bid for contracts beyond the shores of this island, and many have done so successfully. I am sure that everyone is anxious to see suppliers gain even more contracts outside Ireland. Our responsibility is to encourage and assist them to do so, while complying with the requirements of European Directives on public procurement.

Mr Speaker: Dr Paisley, you had a point of order. Do you wish to —

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: It is too late.

Review of Rating Policy

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on the review of rating policy.

Dr Sean Farren: On behalf of the Executive, I open public consultation on our local rating system.
The Executive agreed in 2000 that a full review of our revenue system was needed. After detailed research and discussion involving the Committee for Finance and Personnel, the Departments and the Ministers, we launch the consultation paper on the review of rating policy. The paper that Members have is the final version of the text — although it will appear in a better, printed form in the next couple of weeks.
The Executive decided to embark on this review in recognition of the fact that the present system is unfair, out of date and does not meet our current needs. The subject is not easy to address: it is complex and provokes strong reactions. However, we are not in Government so that we can avoid the difficult issues. Any proposals for a local taxation system, which is what the rating system is, will touch the lives of all the households and businesses in Northern Ireland. Therefore, we have been mindful of the consequences of radical change.
I have been asked why the Executive cannot be more imaginative in seeking ways of raising local revenue. I have been asked why we have to look to the rates. The answer is that we do not have to restrict ourselves to rating property. However, our options are limited by the Northern Ireland Act 1998 — we cannot readily introduce anything like income tax or VAT.
More importantly, international experience tells us that almost all developed countries continue successfully to operate property-value-based local taxes to help pay for local services. The consultation paper focuses on such systems, but other ideas are not ruled out, providing they can be easily administered, are stable, recurring, and fair to all, and do not have undesirable economic, social or environmental effects.
The consultation paper is not exclusively a Department of Finance and Personnel product. It is an Executive paper, and all Ministers have been consulted and have had an opportunity to have an input. We have worked with the Committee for Finance and Personnel, which has employed a team of rating experts from outside Northern Ireland. The Committee has helped shape the document, and I appreciate its input.
It has been our intention to address the issues in a considered, balanced, open and transparent way. The consultation paper does not make any proposals or recommendations, but it expresses the issues and available options as neutrally as possible, setting out objectively the pros and cons of the possible changes that might be considered.
Nothing was ruled in by the Executive, and nothing was ruled out, apart from domestic water metering and the rating of agricultural property. The consensus among Ministers was that those issues should not be put forward as options in the paper. I reassure Members that any decisions on changing the system, or elements of it, will take full account of the views expressed in the consultative process.
Twelve key issues are identified in the report. Although the question of how individual bills compare with what ratepayers and council-tax payers contribute in GB is addressed, the core of the review is about developing a system that distributes local revenue requirements in a fairer way.
I will not go through all the key issues covered in the paper. However, it might be useful if I mentioned two of the more difficult choices that we face — domestic rating and industrial derating. The present domestic rating system is very hard to defend. In presenting the options in the paper, we have included a dispassionate description of the existing system. However, it is quite difficult to find any defence for the existing domestic system. It does not target social need. On the contrary, in the distribution of the tax burden, it tends to disadvantage the less well off. Although there is a gradual upward curve, the amounts levied flatten out quite markedly for those in more expensive housing.
Therefore, ratepayers with low incomes that are just above the housing benefit threshold pay more than they would do under a fairer system. In taxation language, the system is not progressive. The valuation list is relatively flat and discriminates little between market levels and sectors. A revaluation is long overdue. The last one occurred in 1976 and was based on late 1960s rental values that reflected prevailing social and economic conditions.
The system lacks clarity and transparency. The figures in the valuation list are meaningless to the ratepayer. The rateable values are artificial, so most people cannot understand the basis on which they are asked to pay. That has an impact on an individual’s ability to decide whether his or her assessment is fair, and it affects the public attitude to the appeal process.
Although we have presented the options neutrally, it is widely accepted that a revaluation cannot be conducted on the basis of rental value because an active private rental market exists in only certain areas and market sectors. If the independent market evidence were not widely available, the system would be rendered arbitrary. The main case for domestic revaluation is based on redistribution and the relative contributions of those in prosperous areas compared to those in less well-off areas. However, the inequities of the current system will be exposed even more if the Assembly increases revenues significantly using the current tax base. After all, the review began after the outcry about the increases proposed in autumn 2000. For that reason, the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and I have given assurances that there will be no abnormal increase unless, and until, a fairer system is introduced.
If colleagues doubt the difficulty of defending the present system, they may refer to the many occasions in the Assembly when my predecessor and I faced questions on, and criticism of, the system. The calls to review the system urgently were clear and strong, as they have been for many months. Furthermore, if we agree to consider redistributing the domestic rating burden, we must ensure that there are appropriate safeguards for vulnerable groups and individuals who are beyond benefit support. That means taking into account people’s ability to pay, the avoidance of genuine hardship and ensuring that we do not distort benefit calculations to our disadvantage, by comparison with other regions.
Industrial derating has existed since 1929 and is unique to Northern Ireland — no other region provides that tax break. It costs Northern Ireland £64 million a year, an issue that is likely to generate strong views. It was felt that the matter was so sensitive that it was examined separately, with assistance from external consultants. We wanted to determine the need for industrial derating, its purpose, its continuing relevance and its effectiveness.
A copy of the report will be made available with the consultation paper to inform debate, and I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library today. The study found that the justification for continued industrial derating was questionable, and there are strong arguments in favour of phasing it out. Furthermore, the consultants argued that the overall economic impact of its removal would be negligible in the medium term and that it is not a cost-effective tool of economic development.
I acknowledge that there are strongly held opposing views. A variety of interested parties believe that derating is a significant incentive to attract inward investment, a useful counter-measure to the attractive fiscal regime available in the South, and a partial compensation of the additional costs faced by industries here. The review will take all those views into account.
I mentioned two of the more difficult issues in the consultation paper, which also outlines what we pay rates on, existing and potential rate relief, and how best to deal with vacant rating and/or making owners ultimately liable.
The paper includes an examination of relief for particular groups, ranging from broad reliefs, such as the single person allowance, to more selective ones, such as assistance to pensioners or those who find it hard to make ends meet. The paper also covers some ideas for new reliefs for the commercial sector, such as small business and hardship relief. The list is not exhaustive, and consideration of different reliefs may emerge from public consultation. Again, we shall welcome any views on that.
I understand that the pressure for introducing additional reliefs or a different set of reliefs will be immense and diverse, but we must maintain a careful balance. After all, the rating system is the mechanism through which businesses and households pay their contributions to regional and local services, so if reliefs are wide ranging, they put an unfair burden on remaining ratepayers.
Funding of water services is also considered in the paper. The Assembly is well aware of the investment requirements of the water and sewerage systems, and the Minister for Regional Development has estimated that investment will amount to some £3 billion over the next 15 to 20 years. Water services in Great Britain are no longer in the public sector, so we do not receive any consequential funding under the Barnett formula, and all funding must be found from within our departmental expenditure limit. We must face that difficult issue, and the paper sets out some of the options we can consider. Others may be identified during the consultation.
The Executive are not in the business of creating financial hardship for anyone, and I emphasise that for any change in the rating system after the review, there will be carefully planned transitional arrangements to avoid hardship and to allow time for those paying to adjust.
The consultation period will run beyond the summer until mid-September. Three or four public seminars will take place around Northern Ireland in June, followed by a series of meetings with interest groups and organisations. A web site is ready to provide information and elicit feedback. Assessment of the responses will begin in the early autumn, and a range of options will be identified. An impact analysis will be carried out on those options, and a report will be made to the Executive, involving the Committee for Finance and Personnel, in the autumn.
The programme will be sensitive to the results of consultation and feedback and to the extent of amendments and additional work deemed necessary. The legislative process will follow throughout 2003 and possibly early 2004 when final decisions will be made.
During the various stages, some useful links can be made between the rating policy and public administration reviews. Some aspects of those reviews, however, are distinct. I do not agree that conclusions from the review of public administration are needed before we can make progress on the rating issues. One is a matter of ratepayer contribution; the other involves distributing revenue in the most appropriate way to any new structures that emerge. We must address the basis on which we raise revenue for regional services as well as those covered by the councils. Those services will continue no matter what structures are in place.
I fully expect the consultation on rating to be complex and contentious. Time will be needed to assess the implications of the response to consultation from both an official and a political point of view. It seems realistic to plan on the basis that we will need to consider carefully when to take substantive decisions and how implementation of possible options might be phased. Responses to the consultation will clarify matters, and that in turn will affect the timetable for decisions. Furthermore, the neutrality and openness of the consultation are underscored by our deciding in the autumn the phasing on which any substantive decisions will be taken.
The recently announced reinvestment and reform initiative was not conceived until the rating review was well advanced. There is, however, a relationship between the two, in the sense that any additional revenue we decide to raise locally must come from a reformed and fairer system. The manner in which we address the review of rating will be a measure of how responsibly we are prepared to face difficult issues. The issues are complex, and the challenge is considerable. I am keen to hear Members’ views, now and over the coming months.

Mr Speaker: The moment of interruption for Question Time is 2.30 pm. Therefore I remind the House to be as concise as possible in putting and responding to questions.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I welcome the Minister’s statement. It is one thing to say that the current system is unfair, but it will be quite another to put an acceptable alternative in its place. I caution against the abolition of the industrial derating scheme, largely because of the negative impact that it is likely to have on small businesses in Northern Ireland. The clear inducements offered by the regime in the neighbouring jurisdiction would have an adverse impact on the Northern Ireland economy. How does the Minister envisage progress after the consultation period? Who will carry out the assessment, and who will be responsible for developing the proposals?
I ask the Minister to bear in mind the strong representations made by many people who feel that rating is a very important matter. Some people feel that small buildings — local community buildings such as Orange halls — should not be charged rates. Will the Minister pay particular attention to those representations and also to those made by the equestrian industry for the derating of equestrian centres? Many groups and individuals will want to make strong representations. Is the consultation period long enough, given that it is over the summer months, to allow such groups and individuals to make a real contribution?

Mr Speaker: Before inviting the Minister to respond, I would like to point out that this is a statement on a policy issue. I must ask Members not to get into the nitty-gritty of every little bit and piece. Whether they expect the Minister to respond, or someone outside to take notice of it, is another matter, but we cannot have detailed issues of this kind on a policy statement of such a substantive order. However, the Member did ask general policy questions and I invite the Minister to respond.

Dr Sean Farren: I am unveiling the approach to a consultation process that will involve all interested parties and the public at large across Northern Ireland. I do not come with answers to particular questions this afternoon. The answers are to be elicited and developed during the consultation and an assessment of what the consultation provides us with thereafter. Therefore, if Members are looking to me for answers on particular aspects of rating policy, they will be somewhat disappointed. I am anxious to hear what people in the House and elsewhere have to say on the issues. The matter will advance in the usual way. The Department of Finance and Personnel has a particular responsibility in that regard.
The process will develop in consultation with the Executive and the Committees that are directly affected. For example, the Committee for Regional Development and the Minister for Regional Development will be anxious to make a contribution on the future financing of the Water Service. The Minister has told me some of his ideas on that matter, although I am not sure whether he has revealed them to the Committee.
I agree with the Member that replacing a system is difficult. It is easier to recognise the deficiencies of the existing system, but to acknowledge that the system is deficient in many ways, amounting to an inadequate account being taken of social need, places a heavy responsibility on us to address the rating system and to come up with recommendations that will remove gross inequities and make it fairer.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: The rating policy review could well be one of the most important initiatives that the Executive will have embarked on, as it will touch the life of every person in Northern Ireland, and it could pave the way for significant increases in our ability to invest in public services. In those circumstances, it is vital that everyone has their say. Can the Minister outline in more detail how the consultation will happen, and who will be consulted? How will equality and new TSN be taken into account in the review?

Dr Sean Farren: I agree that this is probably one of the most significant consultation processes, and I trust that there will be considerable involvement in it.
Mr Kennedy made a point about time; the Department has set aside 14 weeks for the consultation. At this stage I do not want to make any commitment to extending that period, but I hinted earlier that we will take account of the interest generated and give consideration to ensuring that submissions are well developed and that everyone who wants to be heard, can be. Let us address the time pressures closer to the end of the formally declared consultation period.
We can try to involve everyone by highlighting the issues through public events. I am sure that district councils, which are directly affected, will be anxious to meet me or departmental officials. Assembly Member Kennedy identified several interests, but there are many more and we will be available to hear their concerns. The work of the Committee for Finance and Personnel will be crucial. If sections of society are being missed in the consultation process, I hope that they will be identified early on. If we are failing in any regard, I hope that Members will draw it to our attention so that we can rectify it.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The Minster has said that he is anxious to hear what the Assembly has to say. He has outlined how he will consult with the general public. How will the matter be debated in the Assembly? In another place, given that radical changes are involved, there would be a Green Paper, which would explain all the options, followed by a White Paper, which would indicate what the Government’s view might be in certain circumstances. Both those papers would be debated in the House.
In answer to a previous question of mine, the Minister spoke about a motion being tabled. However, this is not a matter for private Members’ business. It concerns impending Government policy. Therefore, the Government must take responsibility for the child that they will beget. They must, by way of a motion in the House, put the onus on the Assembly. The matter must be discussed thoroughly in the House, and I want an assurance from the Minister that that will happen.
The Minister knows the views of my party. The DUP does not believe that the rates system is the only system whereby money can be raised or saved.
I notice the irritation on the face of the Hon Speaker of the House. I will not fizzle his beard any further by making a speech.

Dr Sean Farren: I am pleased that the Member has spared the House that imposition.
I have no objection to the matter being debated in the House. I am happy to give consideration to the most appropriate timing of such a debate. It would probably be useful for the consultation process to continue for some time so that Members are informed of the views of interested parties and of the general public before the debate. Perhaps the debate should be scheduled for the early autumn. However, I am open to suggestions.
We are also open to suggestions with regard to the raising of revenue. However, legislative constraints in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 preclude the income tax route, which might be one method of raising revenue that the Member has in mind. There is no reason why the House should not debate the matter. The Executive will give serious consideration to any views expressed. They will be communicated to the Treasury, and discussions will be initiated.

Mr Seamus Close: I welcome certain sections of the statement. I welcome the Executive’s recognition — at long last — that the present system is unfair, out of date and does not meet current needs. I welcome the fact that nothing has been ruled in and nothing has been ruled out, and that the domestic rating system is now being seen as hard to defend.
I remain unconvinced of the genuine neutrality and openness of the consultation process. In reading this statement, and other papers associated with it, I can see the Executive’s large footprints leading in a particular direction. The idea is to scrap rental values as the basis for free rates, to introduce capital evaluation and to scrap the abolition of industrial derating. The Executive are intent on making that happen, and they are also intent on the introduction of water rates. The imprints are already there.
In that respect, an opportunity has been lost. Does the Minister not agree that energies would have been better directed towards enabling the introduction of local income tax in Northern Ireland? That is unquestionably the most fair, equitable and transparent system of taxation. Going down this route effectively slams closed the door to local income tax. Surely we are not going to spend all this money on producing documents, having consultation and introducing a new system in a year’s time only to introduce local income tax later?
Does the Minister not agree that, no matter how much we tinker with the rating system — changing the basis from rentable value to capital value — all we are doing is massaging the figures and introducing arbitrary reliefs? Does he not agree that the document is another contrived mechanism for furtively introducing a "tap tax" in which one of the only things ruled out would be water meters? Our poor consumers would not be able to assess the amount of water they use, yet they would have to pay for it.
Does the Minister not agree that an opportunity has been lost to bring about true change and demonstrate real fairness and equity?

Dr Sean Farren: I cannot accept the Member’s invitation to agree with him. I defend the approach adopted in the consultation paper. That approach gives opportunities for debate. It is also open to recommendations on other forms of raising revenue — that option has not been precluded. This is a democratic society, and the Member is free to articulate his views and make them known during the consultation process. Mr Close is a member of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, and I await concerted views on alternative forms of taxation from him or, indeed, the Committee. That is not a criticism of the Committee. The Member frequently refers to local income tax, but I have not seen any firm proposals emanating from him or his party. I await such documentation and recommendations that the Member might deem worthy of putting before us.
We are constrained by current legislation. The Member is aware that, during the negotiations that led to the Good Friday Agreement, some of us were anxious to open up the subject of taxation for wider consideration. Although that was not possible then, it may be so in the future. Issues such as those relating to local forms of taxation could be addressed in the review of the Good Friday Agreement. However, it will be an uphill struggle to achieve what he suggests.
I do not accept that a rating system is necessarily regressive. If we continue with a rating system, we must make it as progressive as possible — that is the challenge in the consultation paper. By raising issues such as industrial derating, the document reflects the view of consultants who were employed to address the issue in as objective a way as possible. The consultation paper reports their views. I emphasise that their views are not Executive policy.
We were urged that it would be appropriate to address the question of industrial derating. It should be addressed because it contains weaknesses and inadequacies, and it does not apply across the business sector. Therefore, it does not, as some Members claim, act as an incentive in attracting inward investment. Those views and conclusions result from an examination of the situation. Members and others outside may have different views, and I urge that those be made known so that all possible views and recommendations are available in the course of the consultation.

Mr Robert McCartney: The Minister has acknowledged that the source of the current problems is the deficit of perhaps £9 to £10 billion, the result of underinvestment over the years, particularly in water and other public services. The Minister has also made it clear that the scope for raising revenue is limited to the rates and, potentially, water charging. The Minister agrees that the money received under the Barnett formula is barely sufficient to meet day-to-day running costs.
The proposals are essentially for the imposition of a wealth tax as a matter of policy. He says that that is fairer, but what he means is that he will tax, through the rates, those who have better properties. That will be justified under the guise of fairness. Will there be any end to the increases on that narrow band of water charges and rates, as interest on private finance initiatives (PFIs), other capital expenditure and borrowings from the Government under the recent arrangement clicks in? Is it not a policy under which the rates will be increased by substantial amounts year on year in order to fund the results of the Minister’s own mistakes in not having ensured, at the time of the agreement, that the black hole of underinvestment was met, to some extent, by the British Government?

Dr Sean Farren: The consultation document contains no proposals. Options are set out, and that is appropriate. We do not, however, claim a monopoly on knowledge and wisdom, and the Member and other interests may want to make us aware of other options.
The Member has frequently made the point that at the conclusion of the Good Friday Agreement there was no commitment to, as he puts it, make good the deficit. As I recall, the Member denied us the benefit of his wisdom and recommendations in the final stages of the negotiations that led to the Good Friday Agreement. We are therefore left to speculate as to what might have been had Mr McCartney been present at that time.

Mr Roy Beggs: The Minister’s statement will assist in launching the review of rating policy, and I welcome it on behalf of the Committee for Finance and Personnel. I also welcome the public consultation exercise. I hope that citizens and interested groups will be stimulated by the document and contribute to the review. They have an opportunity to influence what happens, and there will be no point in their making comments in several months’ or years’ time. I hope that they will be engaged and that they will make a mature and responsible contribution to the issues highlighted today and the options open to them.
I welcome rates relief and rebates for the working poor. The review will discuss the rating of vacant property. Some £48 million a year is lost through the lack of rates for vacant properties. Such a proposal would draw in significant funds even if just a proportion of the money were used. Does the Minister accept that other policy changes may be needed in tandem with changes to the rating policy? Issues might emerge during the review of the rating system, such as planning restrictions in certain areas.
The Minister stated his intention to hold several public seminars in June and to establish a web site. Will his Department co-ordinate the seminars directly or will they be facilitated by neutral organisations as was the case for the regional transportation strategy, the railways task force and the review of the Planning Service?

Dr Sean Farren: I welcome Mr Beggs’s suggestions for the format and the auspices under which the public seminars would take place, and I will pass them on to the officials in charge. We want the consultation to be an open process in which all views are heard. I am not sure how we can take on board the planning issues to which Mr Beggs referred. However, if he has specific ideas on how they will affect rating policy, I suggest that he writes to the Minister of the Environment and my Department. It may be that he is thinking about the valuations that are struck on particular businesses depending on whether they are situated in a town or a city. If Mr Beggs would clarify his concerns, I will ensure that they are addressed.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: Considering the amount of debate in the House on the review of rating policy, it is clear that it will be an important addition to our thinking on fiscal matters. However, does the Minister agree that the announcement of the reinvestment and reform initiative has changed the context in which the review is being carried out? That initiative, together with public-private partnerships and our public expenditure create new ways to improve infrastructure. What effect will the announcement of 2 May 2002 have on the review of rating policy?

Dr Sean Farren: The precise connection between the announcement of the reinvestment and reform initiative and the review of rating policy — indeed any reform to replace a system of local revenue raising — is that borrowing under the reinvestment and reform initiative must be serviced through local revenue sources. The Treasury set that condition so that the direct relationship between what we borrow and the means that we have available to service the borrowing could be clearly seen. The reinvestment and reform initiative provides us, through that borrowing facility, with access to significant capital at gilt rates to invest in our major infrastructural projects.
Everyone in the House knows the extent of the need for investment in such projects across the major services of health, education, transport, water, roads, and so on. Our judgement on the sources that we draw on for the necessary finance must be balanced carefully. A strategic investment body will be established to advise the Executive on how best to finance those major investment projects.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I think I understood the Minister correctly when he said that the revenue review would consider more than just the money that could be raised by rates and water charges. Will he assure us that any savings that accrue following the review of public administration will be allowed for in the review that he is undertaking? In addition, the Minister said:
"The main case for domestic Revaluation is about redistribution and the relative contributions of those in prosperous areas compared to those in less well off areas."
I am sure that the Minister agrees that we do not just want to see a redistribution that may result in a lopsided rating, or other, system. We must devote our energies and expertise to ensuring that we create a fair and equitable rating system. The Minister has rightly emphasised that the main thrust of the review will be to ensure that we have a fairer rating system, if that can be achieved. Will he also assure us that the Assembly will have the final say on the matter when the exercise is finished and that there will not simply be a series of statements from him?

Dr Sean Farren: If Members need any assurance that the Assembly will have the final say on the allocation of public expenditure and the sources from which public money is raised that we have control over, I give it. Any such decision cannot be contained in a take-it-or-leave-it ministerial statement. I should have thought that I hardly needed to give such an assurance, but I give it.
The more we save, the less we have to borrow, and the more is available to us to spend directly from our own sources on the services and the infrastructure for which we have responsibility. We will work vigorously to achieve maximum savings across the whole Administration. We have a clear obligation, as I made clear today in my previous statement, and have made clear on other occasions. A lopsided rating system would not be fair. That is the simple response to the Member’s concern about that part of the consultation document that highlights the disproportionate contributions that the current system requires from ratepayers on low and high incomes. A fair system seeks contributions in accordance with people’s means.
Deficient and unfair as the present system might be in some respects, there are provisions to exempt people on the lowest incomes. Housing benefit is available, which enables such people to pay their rate bills. A concept of social justice must run through the entire system, and it is up to us to meet the challenge of achieving a system that adheres to such principles. The system must be as fair as we can possibly make it. Nobody likes to pay taxes.

Mr William Hay: I welcome the Minister’s statement and the review of rating policy consultative paper. The issue is important; it is one that will be debated in the Assembly and across Northern Ireland for many years to come.
Several points are worth mentioning. The Minister said that he planned to hold three or four seminars across Northern Ireland in June. Is that sufficient to deal with the issue if it is so vital? Moreover, what mechanism does the Minister intend to use to consult with interested groups and organisations, and how does he intend to directly consult with local government? Given its importance, a separate or different mechanism for consultation with local government is necessary. Local government will want to be consulted.

Dr Sean Farren: Local government will be keen to be consulted, and it will hardly need much prompting from me — or from any other Minister — to become involved in the consultation process. It would not surprise me if the paper is circulated as soon as it falls into the hands of officials from our 26 district councils. The paper will be circulated to Members, and time will be set aside over the coming months for them to debate the issue and come to some concerted views. We shall consider any channels that we should use.
Mr Hay asked whether three or four seminars would be sufficient. I indicated in response to an earlier question that I am open to reviewing the need for such events. Public events are there to highlight the issues, and I do not imagine that decisions will be arrived at them. Such public events will draw in representatives and participants from a wide range of backgrounds. They will return to their various groups and organisations and stimulate debate. I hope that the events will be seen as a significant consultation, and that there will be considerable involvement. If Members are aware of groups to which we are failing to reach out, or groups that want to have an input and seek engagement with us during the consultation, I am happy to receive representations. I will try to see how we can meet any requests that are made.

Rev William McCrea: It never ceases to amaze me how so many Members welcome the Minister’s introduction of what is going to be an extensive hike on rates for the vast majority of our constituents. Make no mistake about it: what is being talked about today will have major and serious implications for our constituents. The Minister spoke earlier about Members being free to articulate their views during the debate in the Assembly. That will be interesting, because Members are often limited to five minutes in debates in which to articulate their views. That does not happen at Westminster when major taxation issues are being discussed. Make no mistake: this is a direct taxation on the people.
Thatcher introduced a poll tax through the front door and was frowned upon by the vast majority of people. Will taxation through the back door be more favourably accepted? Can the Minister assure us that there will no such time limit during the debate and that he will do all in his power to ensure that there is a frank and open major debate on an issue that will be of major importance to all our constituents in the future?

Mr Speaker: One of the issues that the Member raised is really a point of order. It is not for the Minister to determine the length of debates or the length of speeches during the debates. That is entirely a matter for the Business Committee to decide. The Business Committee could determine that a motion would take all week. The Member and other Members should channel their views through their representatives on the Business Committee. In fairness, the Minister can reasonably be asked questions only about matters for which he has responsibility, and that is not one of them.

Rev William McCrea: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I do not normally take them, but on this occasion I will hear what the Member has to say.

Rev William McCrea: I did not ask the Minister to allocate the time. I asked him to use his influence to ensure that we have an open debate.

Mr Speaker: It is good that I clarified the matter for the House. It will be up to several Members when the time comes, one of whom is seated not very far from the Member — and he has great influence in these matters.

Dr Sean Farren: Much as I might be described as having influence, I am glad that you, Mr Speaker, have indicated the way in which it is circumscribed in this instance and that this is a matter for the Business Committee. Members must be able to debate such a significant matter, and I will welcome that opportunity.
There is absolutely nothing back door about this. If there were, I would hardly have come here, made my statement and responded in the way in which I did to show that this is an open process. It will be for the Assembly to decide what form or forms of local taxation it wants to adopt and the charges that might be associated with them. It is up to us to promote the discussion.
I note the Member’s foresight in that he can tell us that we are going to have significant hikes. I have certainly made absolutely no statement in that regard. [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Sean Farren: Perhaps during the debate that the Member wants he will make proposals for the major hikes that he has referred to. I have certainly made no such proposals. During Budget debates in the future we will have to consider and determine the charges that are to be associated with our forms of revenue. There will be nothing back door about it; there is nothing back door about the process now, nor will there be during the public consultation that we are now embarking on.

Amendments to Standing Orders

Mr Speaker: There are three motions in the Order Paper to amend Standing Orders. They all relate to the same issue. Therefore I wish to conduct one debate only — if, indeed, debate there be. I shall ask the Clerk to read the first motion and then call the Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures to move that motion. Debate will then take place on all three motions and all who wish to speak, including the mover, will speak in that single debate. When all who wish to speak have done so, I will call the Chairperson to make a winding-up speech, if there have been any interventions. I will then put the question on the first motion. I will then ask the Chairperson to formally move each motion in turn and separately put the question on each motion without further debate. If that is clear, I will proceed.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.
I beg to move:
In Standing Order 12(1) delete "41(2)" and insert "41(8)".
The following motions stood in the Order Paper:
In Standing Order 41 delete all and insert:
"41. SCRUTINY OF STATUTORY RULES
(1) Every statutory rule or draft statutory rule which:
(a) is laid before the Assembly; and
(b) is subject to Assembly proceedings, shall stand referred to the appropriate Committee for scrutiny.
(2) The appropriate Committee may also scrutinise any statutory rule which:
(a) deals with a transferred matter (within the meaning of the Northern Ireland Act 1998); and
(b) is not subject to Assembly proceedings,whether or not the statutory rule is laid before the Assembly.
(3) To assist Committees in the scrutiny of instruments under this Standing Order there shall be an officer of the Assembly known as the Examiner of Statutory Rules who shall carry out any functions delegated to him/her under paragraph (4)(b).
(4) The appropriate Committee may:
(a) scrutinise the instrument itself; or
(b) delegate to the Examiner of Statutory Rules any of its functions in relation to the technical scrutiny of the instrument.
(5) Where a Committee has delegated functions to the Examiner of Statutory Rules under paragraph (4)(b), references to the Committee in the following provisions of this Standing Order, in relation to functions so delegated, include references to the Examiner.
(6) In scrutinising an instrument the appropriate Committee shall inter alia consider the instrument with a view to determining and reporting on whether it requires to be drawn to the special attention of the Assembly on any of the following grounds, namely, that:
(a) it imposes a charge on the public revenues or prescribes the amount of any such charge;
(b) it contains provisions requiring any payment to be made to any Northern Ireland department or public body in respect of any approval, authorisation, licence or consent or of any service provided or to be provided by that department or body or prescribes the amount of any such payment;
(c) the parent legislation excludes it from challenge in the courts;
(d) it purports to have retrospective effect where the parent legislation confers no express authority so to provide;
(e) there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication of it or in the laying of it before the Assembly;
(f) there appears to be a doubt whether it is intra vires or it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the parent legislation;
(g) it calls for elucidation;
(h) it appears to have defects in its drafting; or on any other ground which does not impinge on its merits or the policy behind it.
(7) The appropriate Committee shall where practicable report on an instrument before any resolution or motion relating to that instrument is moved in the Assembly.
(8) In this Standing Order:
"Committee" means:
(a) a Statutory Committee; or
(b) in the case of an instrument which has been made or is to be made by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly, or by the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, the Committee of the Centre;
"instrument" means a statutory rule or a draft statutory rule;
"the parent legislation", in relation to an instrument, means the legislation under which the instrument is made or is to be made;
"statutory rule" has the same meaning as in the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979.
(9) For the purposes of this Standing Order a statutory rule or draft statutory rule is subject to Assembly proceedings if, in pursuance of the parent legislation, proceedings may be taken in the Assembly in relation to it." — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]
In Standing Order 54(2) delete "41(2)" and insert "41(8)". — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]
This group of motions deals with the scrutiny of subordinate legislation and arises out of the Committee on Procedures’ report on its review of the legislative process. On 26 February 2002 the Assembly endorsed the recommendations of the report, of which this is one.
The substantive motion is to amend Standing Order 41. Due to changes in numbering, consequential amendments to Standing Orders 12 and 54 will be required.
Although the legislative review concentrated on primary legislation, the Committee found that there were several examples of subordinate legislation — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Conor Murphy: — that is, Statutory Rules that did not come under Assembly scrutiny. It noted the recommendation by the Examiner of Statutory Rules in his report for the period December 1999 to July 2001 that Standing Orders should be amended to ensure that all subordinate legislation is subject to, or at least liable to, scrutiny by the Assembly.
The Examiner of Statutory Rules highlighted how, under existing Standing Orders, the scrutiny role of the Assembly is limited to Statutory Rules or draft Statutory Rules, which are made under the primary legislation that comes within the remit of the Assembly. The effect of that, he explained, was that many Statutory Rules, which exercise considerable power over people’s lives, escaped scrutiny by the Assembly.
He gave as an example orders made under the Diseases of Animals (Modification) Order (Northern Ireland) 1996, which are not laid before the Assembly but which regulate the way in which people conduct their business or the way animals are marketed. The Examiner highlighted the fact that that was not the case at Westminster, where procedures were in place to ensure that all legislation was subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
The Committee agreed with the Examiner on the importance of the Assembly having in place procedures to ensure the closest examination of all legislation. As such, that is reflected in paragraph (2) of the proposed amendments to Standing Order 41.
The Committee considered another issue raised by the Examiner to amend Standing Orders to require a Committee, when scrutinising the Statutory Rule, to draw it to the attention of the Assembly where it requires a payment to be made in respect of a licence or consent or other service from a public body. That is not provided for in current Standing Orders.
The Examiner suggested that such a requirement should be qualified, so that an imposition of a charge, or the prescription of the amount of the charge, should be reported only where it appeared to the Committee that its imposition called for the special attention of the Assembly. The Committee agreed that the imposition of charges on the public should be drawn to the attention of the Assembly. That would bring it into line with existing practice in Westminster and in the Scottish Parliament. The Committee accepted the recommendation of the Examiner of Statutory Rules, and that has been incorporated in paragraph (6) of the proposed amendment to Standing Order 41.
I commend the amendments to the Assembly.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
In Standing Order 12(1) delete "41(2)" and insert "41(8)":
Resolved (with cross-community support):
In Standing Order 41 delete all and insert:
"41. SCRUTINY OF STATUTORY RULES
(1) Every statutory rule or draft statutory rule which:
(a) is laid before the Assembly; and
(b) is subject to Assembly proceedings,shall stand referred to the appropriate Committee for scrutiny.
(2) The appropriate Committee may also scrutinise any statutory rule which:
(a) deals with a transferred matter (within the meaning of the Northern Ireland Act 1998); and
(b) is not subject to Assembly proceedings, whether or not the statutory rule is laid before the Assembly.
(3) To assist Committees in the scrutiny of instruments under this Standing Order there shall be an officer of the Assembly known as the Examiner of Statutory Rules who shall carry out any functions delegated to him/her under paragraph (4)(b).
(4) The appropriate Committee may:
(a) scrutinise the instrument itself; or
(b) delegate to the Examiner of Statutory Rules any of its functions in relation to the technical scrutiny of the instrument.
(5) Where a Committee has delegated functions to the Examiner of Statutory Rules under paragraph (4)(b), references to the Committee in the following provisions of this Standing Order, in relation to functions so delegated, include references to the Examiner.
(6) In scrutinising an instrument the appropriate Committee shall inter alia consider the instrument with a view to determining and reporting on whether it requires to be drawn to the special attention of the Assembly on any of the following grounds, namely, that:
(a) it imposes a charge on the public revenues or prescribes the amount of any such charge;
(b) it contains provisions requiring any payment to be made to any Northern Ireland department or public body in respect of any approval, authorisation, licence or consent or of any service provided or to be provided by that department or body or prescribes the amount of any such payment;
(c) the parent legislation excludes it from challenge in the courts;
(d) it purports to have retrospective effect where the parent legislation confers no express authority so to provide;
(e) there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication of it or in the laying of it before the Assembly;
(f) there appears to be a doubt whether it is intra vires or it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the parent legislation;
(g) it calls for elucidation;
(h) it appears to have defects in its drafting; or on any other ground which does not impinge on its merits or the policy behind it.
(7) The appropriate Committee shall where practicable report on an instrument before any resolution or motion relating to that instrument is moved in the Assembly.
(8) In this Standing Order:
"Committee" means:
(a) a Statutory Committee; or
(b) in the case of an instrument which has been made or is to be made by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly, or by the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, the Committee of the Centre;
"instrument" means a statutory rule or a draft statutory rule;
"the parent legislation", in relation to an instrument, means the legislation under which the instrument is made or is to be made;
"statutory rule" has the same meaning as in the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979.
(9) For the purposes of this Standing Order a statutory rule or draft statutory rule is subject to Assembly proceedings if, in pursuance of the parent legislation, proceedings may be taken in the Assembly in relation to it." — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
In Standing Order 54(2) delete "41(2)" and insert "41(8)". — [The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy).]

Committee for Employment and Learning: Change of Membership

Resolved:
That Mr David Hilditch shall replace Mr William Hay on the Committee for Employment and Learning. — [Mr Morrow.]
The sitting was suspended at 2.25 pm.
On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair)—

Mr Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the visit of honoured guests to the Assembly. The President, or Speaker, of the Assembly of Kosovo, Prof Nexhat Daci, is here with several Members of the Kosovan Parliament. They are in the distinguished visitors Gallery, and I am sure that the House would wish me to welcome them. They will be here for two or three days and will meet with representatives of all the Members and various Committees and bodies of the Assembly. [Applause].

First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Question 3 in the name of Mr Molloy has been withdrawn and will receive a written answer. Questions 1 and 2 stand in the names of Mr Gibson and Mr Paisley Jnr respectively. However, they are not in their places.

Jubilee Tour

4. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what assessment the Executive have made of Her Majesty The Queen’s Jubilee tour of Northern Ireland.
(AQO1422/01)


The Executive have not taken an overall view of Her Majesty The Queen’s Golden Jubilee visit to Northern Ireland. However, we were delighted that the programme for the visit provided opportunities for people from all walks of life, and from across Northern Ireland, to participate in the events and to show the warmth of their feelings and good wishes for Her Majesty in her Golden Jubilee year.


Does the First Minister take encouragement from the Queen’s statement at Stormont, which welcomed
"the real sense of normality that has over recent years been returning to the lives of ordinary people"?
Does he also agree that the visit was a great example of that normality?


I endorse the Member’s comments. In the well-judged remarks that she made in the Great Hall of this Building, Her Majesty referred to
"a real sense of normality",
albeit one
"tempered from time to time by moments of disappointment and pessimism".
We should examine other similar events to develop further that sense of normality. In the context of Her Majesty’s visit to Northern Ireland, it has occurred to me that an invitation by the Government of the Irish Republic to Her Majesty to pay a state visit to the Republic of Ireland would be a sign of developing normality.


Question 5 stands in the name of Mr Ford. However, he is not in his place.

World Debt

6. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, in the light of recent coverage about world debt, what steps are being taken to ensure that the views of the Northern Ireland Executive are represented at the G8 summit in Canada at the end of June 2002.
(AQO1448/01)


Ministers are aware of the difficulties of heavily indebted poor countries, where resources are diverted to interest payments on debt and are unavailable for vital programmes such as health and education. Ten billion pounds are spent annually on servicing a debt of over £200 billion in those countries — money that could be spent much more productively. Responsibility for international development lies with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development. Therefore, there are no plans for the Executive to consider the issue of world debt in the near future. We will not be making representations to the UK Government in advance of the G8 summit next month.


I am disappointed that OFMDFM will not be making representations on the matter. I draw the attention of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to the fact that the people of Northern Ireland are concerned about international matters, and it is appropriate that the Assembly have an opportunity to make their views known.
Are the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister aware that only 85% of the promises made in 1999 at the Cologne conference on world debt have been acted on? The payment of interest on the debts means that basic health and education standards are not being met. An estimated 19,000 children die in developing countries every day.


Order. The Member has put his question.


I appreciate Mr McGrady’s interest in world debt, and his concern was evident in his supplementary question. However, this is a reserved matter, so it would be more appropriate to raise it in the House of Commons, of which Mr McGrady is a Member. The United Kingdom Government’s policy is very similar to his suggestion. The Chancellor has played a significant part in the measures to relieve the debt burden, but it is a complex issue. The burden arose partly because of changed economic circumstances, but largely as a result of self-inflicted problems such as the wars that have taken place in too many developing countries. Often, we are dealing with a symptom, but it should be addressed as sympathetically as possible.

Racially Motivated Hate Crimes

7. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on the problem of racially motivated hate crimes.
(AQO1436/01)

Hate Crimes

20. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to give an update on plans to introduce legislation to tackle hate crimes.
(AQO1425/01)


With your permission, Mr Speaker, we shall answer questions 7 and 20 together. We deplore all racially motivated and sectarian attacks, which have no place in civilised society. Criminal justice, including the criminal law on racially motivated and sectarian crime, is a reserved matter. The Secretary of State has announced his intention to consult on the scope for strengthening the law in that area, and we await with interest the publication of his proposals.


Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Member for his statement that sectarian crime has no place in society. Should Members be more proactive in encouraging the public to embrace ethnic minorities, particularly those who come from abroad to work for a long time, who often experience difficulties?


We must ensure that people are much more aware and sensitive to the needs of, and pressures on, members of ethnic minority communities, and the frequent insidious attacks on them. The Administration have been trying to examine those issues and to hear from those who are directly affected. The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency examined the pernicious effects of such crime on ethnic minority communities. We must do more to promote the equality and rights of everyone, including those from ethnic minorities.


Does the Minister agree that any form of intolerance is to be deplored? Does he further agree that greater community support is required for the police if race crimes are to be combated, including support from Mr McHugh’s party?


Any crime victims would, understandably, wish to turn to the relevant statutory agencies, including the police service, for support and assistance, and Members should do everything to try to encourage them and to ensure that they can. Members of ethnic minority communities, who are perhaps unaware of the subtleties and difficulties of our situation, instinctively turn to the police and other services. It is important that they get that support and that the police service be able to respond with due sensitivity, as well as alacrity.


Can the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister confirm that minority and majority viewpoints will be protected under the equality legislation? Many people are concerned that the equality legislation, as it stands, may be bogged down in the courts for months or years. Can the Ministers confirm that that will not happen?


I am not sure that I can give the Minister guidance on that. I think he is on his own.


It is the usual acoustics problem in the Chamber. I am not quite sure of the content of the Member’s question. It seemed to be that Members are concerned that the equality legislation will be unworkable and bogged down in the courts. I am not sure if the Member is suggesting that, due to equality legislation, issues relating to racially motivated crime will take a long time in the courts. I do not see a connection between the legislation and measures to tackle racially motivated crime. However, if the question is about the delay of the single equality Bill, I remind the Member that that has nothing to do with criminal justice.

Gender Strategy

8. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what resources have been deployed for the development of the gender strategy as proposed in the Programme for Government.
(AQO1427/01)


Within our Department’s Equality and Social Needs Division, the gender policy unit was established to promote gender equality throughout the work of the Executive. Its remit covers women, men, people of differing sexual orientation, people with or without dependents and people with differing marital status. The unit is to bring forward a gender equality strategy this year. It has a complement of four staff and has been allocated £121,000 from the departmental running costs for 2002-03. Those resources will be kept under review as the strategy is developed and implemented, and we will bid for more if need arises.


We are well into 2002 and the development of the gender strategy is behind schedule. I wonder whether the First and the Deputy First Ministers might feel it necessary to enhance the complement of staff or the time that the existing staff have to develop the gender strategy.


I am not sure why the Member thinks that it is behind schedule, as work is being undertaken. A consultation seminar has been held, involving voluntary agencies and Departments, to gather views on key issues. That has been followed up by a series of meetings with the relevant voluntary agencies. The work is under way, and I have no reason to believe that the target will not be met.


Can the First Minister further outline what steps have been taken to develop the gender strategy?


In addition to the seminar and meetings, we are currently consulting Departments on the key issues that will inform the strategy. The strategy will have relevance throughout the Administration, and, therefore, it is appropriate that we consult on it. I remain confident that the Department will meet its objective of evolving a strategy this year.

Age Discrimination

9. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what action is being taken to tackle age discrimination.
(AQO1426/01)


We are determined to tackle age discrimination, and our proposals for legislation will be available for consultation next year. We intend that the legislation will be in operation in Northern Ireland before the deadline of 2006 imposed by the European Directive.
In our consultation on the general content and scope of the single equality Bill, we asked some general questions about age discrimination. There are many complex issues to be addressed. We want to ensure that we take account of expert advice and experience elsewhere in advancing this work.
Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires public authorities to give due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity between persons in nine separate categories, including persons of different ages. Under the promoting social inclusion initiative we are committed to set up a working group by December to examine the causes of social exclusion among older people and to develop a cross-departmental strategy for tackling those issues.


Will the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister convey their response about tackling age discrimination to the Minister for Employment and Learning? Her Department has withdrawn the premium rate concession to people over the age of 60 who wish to avail of learndirect. The reason given, which could be construed as an insult to those people, is that learning and priority has been accorded to those in greatest need of help who are of working age, and, therefore, contribute to the needs of the economy. The Department for Employment and Learning is saying that people over 60 years of age do not contribute to the economy.


The Member has made his question clear. Perhaps the Minister would reply.


The answer is yes. We will relay the points that the Member has raised to the Minister for Employment and Learning.


Are there any plans to extend the powers of the Equality Commission to cover age discrimination?


We have decided in principle that the powers of the Equality Commission should be extended to include age, and indeed — for Members’ information — sexual orientation. I offer that as a mark of our commitment to outlawing all forms of discrimination. We will consult on that when we advance proposals for the single equality Bill.


Will the Deputy First Minister take the opportunity to make a public call to North Down Borough Council to reverse its disgraceful decision not to fund Age Concern — an organisation that helps the aged? That decision was taken on the basis that to give funding to Age Concern would be in breach of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.


I am not aware of that issue, and I do not think that it would be appropriate for me make calls to a particular council in relation to its funding policy. However, I would be very surprised to hear that section 75 requirements could somehow preclude, or constitute a difficulty, in relation to funding groups that work on issues relating to older people.

British-Irish Council

10. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on the British-Irish Council.
(AQO1435/01)


At its inaugural meeting on 17 December 1999, the British-Irish Council (BIC) agreed to advance work on several initial priority areas: environment; drugs; social inclusion; the knowledge economy and transport. At the second summit meeting on 30 November 2001, two further priority areas of work were agreed — telemedicine and tourism.
Work is being done in each of the sectors through working groups of senior officials. Work flowing from those groups led to a ministerial meeting on transport on 19 December 2000; two ministerial meetings on the environment held on 2 October 2000 and 25 February 2002, and one on drugs held on 22 March 2002. Further ministerial meetings are planned. A third summit meeting, which is scheduled to take place on 14 June in Jersey, will focus on the knowledge economy, and a fourth, focusing on social inclusion, is scheduled to take place in November.
In addition to meetings on priority areas, a BIC conference addressing the digital divide took place in Jersey on 24-26 April. A report will be presented to the summit meeting in June. A conference on targeting the proceeds of the drugs trade took place in Guernsey in May. Further conferences in the BIC drugs sector are planned.


I welcome the Minister’s positive statement. Will the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister take this opportunity to recognise the major benefits of the knowledge economy and encourage the strategic investment body to ensure investment in that crucial area?


The BIC is one of the new institutions created under the agreement and is being developed in parallel with other elements of the agreement. The response of all member Administrations to the programme has been positive and wholehearted. A conference for decision-makers on bridging the digital divide took place in Jersey, and provided an opportunity for representatives from Northern Ireland Departments to hear first-hand about models of good practice and experience of that issue.
The question on the strategic investment body is appropriate. It is, as the Member said, a crucial area and one that we are anxious to advance. In developing that initiative, we will want to take advantage of best practice across all elements of the BIC to maximise what we can discover.


Does the First Minister believe that the British-Irish Council will be in place in a year’s time, or does he agree with his Colleague, Lord Kilclooney, that, because of the behaviour of IRA/Sinn Féin, the entire agreement could collapse before then?
Will he comment on the views expressed by his party colleague, Jeffrey Donaldson, that his party should collapse the Executive because of the involvement of Sinn Féin in international terrorism? Are those comments simply headline-grabbing statements to prevent the haemorrhage of members from his party to the DUP?


I congratulate the Member for the width of his supplementary question, but I am slightly surprised at his use of the term "headline-grabbing", as if such tactics would ever be used by any party other than his own.
We have dealt with the British-Irish Council, and I have detailed the meetings that have taken place and will take place within that context. From those comments, the Member can see the good things that are being done. We have all known from the outset about the things that could threaten the existence of this institution. Indeed, some of those threats have come from the Member and his Colleagues. Nonetheless, we endeavour to see this being implemented and hope that all parties to the agreement will carry out all their obligations under it.


Mr Sammy Wilson, who has deserted east Belfast to live in east Antrim for non-political reasons, mentioned my name. Does the First Minister recall that the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body was a failure because it met in secret and did not report to parliamentarians or to the people? Will the British-Irish Council report on its good work?


As the Member knows, following each meeting of the British-Irish Council and, indeed, of the North/South Ministerial Council, statements are made and matters put into the public domain. Consequently, there is an openness and a transparency that is highly desirable in any government institution.
We very much want to see responsibility to the British-Irish Council being maintained. We are, of course, conscious of the fact that the Assembly’s existence, which the Member worked very hard to achieve, is one of the things that the people of Northern Ireland regard as a very significant benefit.
Those who sit in the corner and carp cannot point to any similar achievement of their own.

Small Employers’ Threshold

11. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on the small employers’ threshold in disability discrimination law.
(AQO1447/01)


The EU Framework Directive requires the removal by December 2006 of the existing exemption from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 for employers with fewer than 15 employees. Consultation on the removal of the threshold and the timescale for doing so will be carried out later this year in Northern Ireland. We propose to implement the removal ahead of the required deadline of 2006 as set by the EU.
Ms Lewsley:
This action compensates for many people’s disappointment that the single equality Bill was not introduced. Has a target date been set for the implementation of the legislation?


The Executive recognise the need to extend protection to all disabled employees, so we intend to remove the threshold in advance of the EU’s 2006 deadline. Our target date is January 2004, and consultation will be carried out later in 2002.

Northern Ireland Economic Council/Northern Ireland Economic Research Centre

12. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what plans there are for the future of (a) the Northern Ireland Economic Council; and (b) the Northern Ireland Economic Research Centre.
(AQO1433/01)


After a review of the Northern Ireland Economic Council (NIEC) and the provision of independent economic advice and research, the Executive agreed on 17 May that they should seek to improve the supply of economic advice by setting up a new research body combining the roles of the NIEC and the Northern Ireland Economic Research Centre (NIERC). Consultation has commenced with the NIEC, the NIERC, the Committee of the Centre, the Committee for Finance and Personnel and the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and it will continue until 19 June 2002.


Does the First Minister accept that it is important that the Government continue to have an independent mechanism of scrutiny and overview when they are carrying out economic policy planning and assessment? Does he agree that independent assessment is important, particularly as we unpick many decades of unfettered Civil Service power in the North? Why did considerable time elapse before the Executive’s review of the matter in May?


It is right that those important matters should be considered carefully and deliberately. The Executive have agreed to set up a new research body, and consultation will take place. I assure Mr Attwood that a key objective is to ensure that the Administration have genuinely independent advice of the best quality. We need people who can consider the situation objectively, without being responsible for the decisions, matters and policies on which they advise, so that they are not influenced in their opinion. We appreciate that open and independent advice lies at the heart of good policy decision-making in the Executive. It is our urgent desire to receive such advice, which is partly why we took time to pursue the matter. The Executive will be able to be certain that the advice that they receive is genuinely independent.


I do not see Mr McMenamin in his place.

Constituency Visit

14. asked the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister whether there are any plans to visit his constituency.
(AQO1421/01)


We have no plans to make a joint visit to the East Londonderry constituency. However, we visited the area on two occasions recently. On 12 April we officially opened the new Causeway Hospital and, more recently, we were there to see riders and spectators at a practice session for the North West 200.


Is the First Minister aware of the deep concern in my constituency of East Londonderry, and in other constituencies, following the revelation of the Republican movement’s involvement in Colombia in last night’s Channel 4 programme ‘Dispatches: The Colombian Connection’? Does he agree that its involvement in South America calls into question its commitment to peace and democracy?


Order. Geography was never my strongest point, but the last time that I looked at a map, I did not notice that Mr McClarty’s constituency extended to Colombia. I have heard it suggested here that he may intend to go there on holiday, but, given the experiences of some other tourists there, it might not be best advised for him to do so.

Culture, Arts and Leisure

Question 7, standing in the name of Mr Byrne, has been transferred to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and question 8, standing in the name of Mr Jim Wilson, has been withdrawn and will receive a written answer.

Participation in Sporting Activities

1. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, in the light of his objective to increase recorded levels of active participation in sporting activities, to outline (a) the time-limited targets set in pursuance of this objective; and (b) the measures being put in place to ensure that those targets are achieved.
(AQO1453/01)


The target, including time limits set for increasing recorded levels of active participation in sporting activities, is 49% by the end of 2002-03, against a baseline of 48% for 2000-01. The proposed actions to achieve that target are increasing the number of sporting opportunities in schools, communities and the sporting network; increasing the number of volunteers equipped to develop the participation of young people in sport and trained to encourage lifelong participation; establishing the Northern Ireland Network Centre of the UK Sports Institute to increase opportunities in Northern Ireland; identifying and supporting talented performers in Northern Ireland; and raising the standard of coaching for high-level performers.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)


Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Minister referred to an increase of 1% a year. The targets are reasonable, but, given the health of some sectors of the community, perhaps greater encouragement to participate in sport should be given by targeting funding at organisations, such as schools or further education colleges, where more impact could be made. If the targets are to be met and surpassed, the number of people who participate actively in sport must be increased.


This is the first year that the Department has set targets and, therefore, it has inadequate data with which to work. When setting targets, the Department must take heed of the level of available resources. Achievable targets are important, and they will be reviewed annually. I do not disagree with the tone of Mr McHugh’s remarks: there are barriers to participation in sport. Sport is beneficial on several levels. A recent report from Queen’s University claims that medical costs for those people who engage in physical activity are 30% lower than for those people who lead a more sedentary lifestyle. Participation in sport lowers heart disease and provides many other health benefits. Therefore, in addition to the pleasure of taking part in sport, there are financial and economic reasons for doing so.

Match-funding

2. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure if he will consider match-funding the moneys raised by voluntary organisations for sporting provision.
(AQO1418/01)


I am aware of the positive contribution of voluntary organisations to the development of sport in Northern Ireland. I would like to be in a position to match the funding that those organisations raise for sporting provision, but resources do not permit that.


The Minister should be the master of his own resources. He should determine his budget in discussion with the Assembly Committee and his Executive Colleagues. Given that he feels this, why did he feel it necessary to interrupt important ministerial business several weeks ago to vote against an Executive Colleague’s being able to enjoy the same flexibility to decide on, and be the master of, her budget? He voted for a motion that required the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to match the money raised by friends of hospitals groups. Does the Minister not consider his actions to be hypocritical, given that his voting against his ministerial Colleague was inconsistent with the answer that he just gave?


I will try to respond to that long, convoluted second question.


It was a simple point.


I will respond without prompting, if the Member does not mind.
With regard to matching funding for sport, the Department is already providing up to 70% for capital funding, so the Member is asking it to reduce that from 70% to 50 %. The Department is also funding up to 90% of revenue for sports development. Under the Member’s proposal, that would drop to 50%. With regard to Exchequer funding for sports development, we are already providing up to 50%, so funding from voluntary organisations is being matched in many areas.


Perhaps the Minister could answer the question.


I ask the Member to be patient. If he does not shout at me, he will be able to hear me better.
With regard to sports, the data is less precise than would be expected for health and social services, so if the Member is proposing that we should match-fund the money raised by voluntary organisations for sport, he should say what sort of money he is talking about. We estimate that up to £50 million is raised by voluntary organisations, and it is completely beyond the Department’s reach to match such amounts. There is a connection between sport and health, but they are two different matters. Mr Murphy would be better to ask questions that relate to my responsibilities.


The Minister kindly supplied me with some information on the sports match-funding that is available in England, and that has distributed some £28 million among 72 different sports. I thank the Minister for his assessment. Has he looked at the possibility of introducing such a scheme?


The funding is constantly under review, but, as Mr Hilditch knows, we are constrained by resources. The money that we give to the Sports Council amounts to £2·4 million, a small amount. It is difficult to consider other initiatives with such a level of funding, but we keep the matter under review. I value the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure’s ideas for initiatives.

Visitor Amenities

3. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what capital and revenue funding will be provided to visitor amenities in Northern Ireland during the current financial year.
(AQO1449/01)


The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure already provides revenue funding to several visitor amenities, such as the Ulster Museum, the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum, the Ulster American Folk Park, Armagh County Museum and the Armagh Observatory and Planetarium. The funding will amount to just over £12 million for this financial year. At present, no moneys are set aside for capital development or, indeed, to resource the 400 other facilities identified in research work for the local museum and heritage review.


The sums mentioned by the Minister are attributable to museums only. The Minister will be aware of the problems that many visitor centres are experiencing because of the economic climate, especially the tourist trade. Does the Minister agree that those visitor centres should not be considered profit-making enterprises, although they should strive to enhance their income as much as possible? As visitor centres are enduring features of our culture and heritage, would moneys not be better spent on them than on one-off sponsored concerts?


It is difficult for me to see a way to fund all 400 local museum and heritage sites. My Department is looking at how we approach and prioritise support. That is where the current local museum and heritage review comes in. That review is with the Department of the Environment awaiting response, which will allow us to produce the document and an implementation plan. It specifically looks at the 400 local museum and heritage sites. Mr McGrady and other Members will understand that it is impossible for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure to fund all the sites, so large is the network.
The Northern Ireland Events Company provides a different function for concerts and events held on the Stormont estate — it underwrites potential losses. If a concert does not make a loss, the Events Company provides no money. If a concert makes a loss, there is a limit up to which that loss will be underwritten, which is to ensure that the concert takes place. Thus far, the concerts have been successful; they have promoted the image of Northern Ireland in particular, which is important. After 25 years of our unfortunate, chaotic history, we need to try harder to improve our image outside Northern Ireland. Therefore, that is where the Events Company comes in.


Does the Minister agree that we could have an overprovision of amenity centres in Northern Ireland, and that he should show greater caution in approving further centres in view of the experiences we have had at the Navan Centre, the Armagh Planetarium and now at St Patrick’s Centre in Downpartick? Will he ensure that future applications have proper marketing machinery in place, so that centres do not increasingly burden our ratepayers?


This Department or, indeed, its predecessor, did not have a role in approving any of those cases. As far as I understand, Down District Council took the lead on decisions on St Patrick’s Centre. The Armagh Planetarium has been in operation for some 35 years and is a valuable facility. That is why we are looking at proposals to ensure that the planetarium remains, and at ways in which we can redevelop it. The Navan Centre is the property of trustees in Armagh. As such, it is their responsibility.
I agree with the Member’s subtext. We have a proliferation of such facilities, and people who decide to build and develop them should be clear about the revenue consequences. Obtaining the capital is only one aspect — getting the revenue to run the centres from year to year is the hard part. There is a tendency in many proposals to overestimate the visitor count. The Navan Centre visitor count was estimated at around 150,000, yet it never attracted more than 50,000 — therein lies the centre’s difficulty.


One of the major visitor amenities in Northern Ireland is Derry’s walls, and that is not only when the Apprentice Boys attend their parade in the Maiden City. Will the Minister indicate the capital and revenue funding that the walls will receive this year, so that the figure of 90,000 tourists that visited the venue last year can be increased?


The Derry walls are the responsibility of the Environment and Heritage Service of the Department of the Environment. The Department plays a part in attracting visitors by promoting cultural diversity and through support for the Maiden City Festival, which, through the Apprentice Boys’ march, features Derry’s walls. The Department plays a part, but the question would have been better put to the Department of the Environment, which is more responsible.

Visual Arts Museum

4. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure whether there has been any consideration of providing a visual arts museum at the Ulster Museum site.
(AQO1415/01)


The Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland’s (MAGNI) ‘Opening Horizons’ document identified the need for a museum that would encompass all creative arts, not another gallery displaying rows of paintings. The Department and MAGNI continue to discuss the best way to achieve that need, which could result in a visual arts museum at the Ulster Museum site.


This is a follow up to my question AQO 128/99 of 7 February 2000 on the creation of a creative arts museum. Will the Minister consider implementing the "string of pearls" idea throughout Northern Ireland, using such Belfast sites as the Crumlin Road Courthouse and Jail, the Ormeau Baths Gallery and the Engine Room Gallery on the Newtownards Road?


I recall the question and the response to Dr Adamson. There is an argument that there is a so-called string of pearls in Belfast; the other argument is that there is a cluster. We support MAGNI’s strategy, a key part of which will be the museum of sea and sky, which relates directly to east Belfast and to the opportunities that are opening up around the Titanic Quarter — the slipways, the drawing office and the Thompson dry dock. That seems to be a productive way forward for the museum sector.
A £60 million flagship national art gallery was discussed, but that will be beyond the means of the devolved Administration for the foreseeable future. An extension to the Stranmillis building could provide a site for such a gallery. Other ideas can be advanced, but we must consider the capital and resource implications and be certain that we will get the visitors through the doors to avoid the need for constant subventions.


Many private conversations are being held on all sides of the House. Please bear in mind that that is not only discourteous to the Minister, but it makes it difficult for the questioner to hear the answer.

Financial Assistance for Groups

5. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, in view of the lack of European Structural Fund (ESF) funding to many groups, including the Inner City Trust and the Playhouse in the Derry City Council area, to give a commitment, in the short term, to provide financial assistance to some of these groups.
(AQO1451/01)


As no additional funds have been set aside, I cannot make a commitment to provide further financial assistance to groups within the Derry City Council area; however, my Department has funded various groups there. In the past three years, £2 million has been awarded to arts projects through the Arts Council and direct from the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. Furthermore, last year over £200,000 was awarded to groups through the Department’s cultural diversity grants programme.


I thank the Minister for his response, which I probably anticipated. The Playhouse has a unique history; it provides an extensive view of the arts through innovative programmes. Therefore, I hoped that in this financial year there would be a commitment to provide funding to tide it over during a difficult part of its history.


I appreciate Mrs Courtney’s concerns, and I understand exactly why she holds them. However, her question relates to the lack of European structural funding — in effect, the gap. Unfortunately, resources for the arts are limited. It is difficult to fund gaps, although the Executive have recently tried to do so. There is constant funding.
The Inner City Trust has received funding, and the Playhouse in the Derry City Council area has received funding to the tune of £266,000. There has been support in the past, but it would be wrong of me to hold out hope that the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure can step in and provide gap funding for groups that are in difficulties as a result of the lack of ESF funding.


Does the Minister agree that Derry City Council should manage its finances better, so that it could give extra finance to those facilities, rather than give the Bloody Sunday Trust a large amount of money to the detriment of other voluntary and social groups in the wider council area?


That is a matter for Derry City Council. I am not aware of how much money has gone to the Bloody Sunday Trust. The ratepayers and the electorate in the city need to ask those questions. Mrs Courtney illustrated perfectly the difficulties that several groups face over a very small amount of money. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure cannot support those groups, and the council needs to look carefully at how it can support them — if it is not already doing so.


Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Does the Minister agree that the community and voluntary organisations committed to promoting culture and the arts in designated TSN areas will not benefit from Peace II because the criteria have been skewed to favour the private business sector?


I am not saying that I agree or disagree. That question is outside my remit and should be directed at another Minister.

Disabled Sports Funding

6. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to outline the total funding allocated for disabled sports in the last five financial years; and to make a statement.
(AQO1430/01)


The Sports Council is responsible for distributing funding for sport, including disabled sports, and the total funding allocated for disabled sports in the past five financial years was £409,000. That may not sound a significant sum, but well over half of that total, £223,000, was allocated in the last year. I will continue to do my utmost to secure further additional funds for disabled sport.


The Special Olympics will be held in Ireland next year, the first time that they will have been held outside America. Will the Minister say what the Sports Council is doing to encourage people with disabilities to participate in sport, so that they will be able to compete in next year’s Olympics?


My Department has bid for £1·2 million from the Executive programme funds to support the Special Olympics. We are playing a part in the host towns’ process and the torch run, and an event is taking place in Belfast. The Sports Council supports athletes with disabilities, and the Department and the Sports Council want to increase participation and access.
I do not have details of the funding for athletes taking part in next year’s Special Olympics. However, a series of programmes is under way, and Disability Sports NI, which was set up with Sports Council guidance, runs many of them and promotes athletes with disabilities. We are producing a strategic plan for Disability Sports NI, and funding has been offered. The Sports Council has always funds for disability access and so on, but I will see what more can be done.

Cultural Diversity

9. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what strategy he will develop to explore how cultural diversity can be creatively addressed.
(AQO1429/01)


My Department has played a key role in promoting cultural diversity through, for example, the Diversity 21 programme, and its cultural diversity grants programme. The need for a wider cultural diversity policy was identified in the arts and culture vision document ‘Face to Face’. The Department has begun the process of gathering information to help shape a cultural diversity strategy. The process is in the early stages of development and will include specific proposals for action to extend the Department’s cultural diversity activities in line with the recommendations set out in ‘Face to Face’.


The Minister will be aware that there has been a re-emergence of some difficulties in interface areas, even in his constituency of South Belfast. Will he assure us that he will seek to work on community relations with representatives from such areas to allow those strategies to be developed in a meaningful way that will have a tangible and positive impact on interface areas?


Responsibility for interface areas, and the issue that Mr Maskey has just raised, lies with the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The principle behind the cultural diversity programme is increased understanding across communities. The development and implementation of a cultural diversity policy is being advanced. Work is under way to develop the policy and is informed by what is happening on the ground and the role that we can play.
Culture shapes us and makes us what we are. To deny somebody’s culture is to try and deny their existence. That is one of the elements that is in play on the Ormeau Road, where a cultural right is being denied. Denying the rights of the Orange culture in south Belfast and Ballynafeigh is effectively a way of saying that people have no right to exist in that area. That type of message promotes difficulties at interface areas. Increasing understanding across communities, difficult though that is, is worth striving for. We need everybody to work towards that. Many of the problems in interface areas have nothing to do with cultural differences. Rather, they have more to do with territory and, perhaps, organisations that are involved with those territories.

Library Materials

10. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to make a statement on the current level of expenditure on materials purchased by libraries in (a) English; (b) Irish; and (c) Ulster Scots.
(AQO1452/01)


The information cannot be provided for those categories of materials. However, through the electronic libraries project and the introduction of a new library management system, the information should become available. Education and library boards’ policy is to provide stock that meets local demand, and, therefore, the amount and nature of material varies between libraries.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an Aire as a fhreagra.
The Minister will not be surprised to learn that my primary reason for posing the question is to address the inadequate provision of Irish language materials in libraries. The Minister does not need to be reminded of his statutory duty to promote the Irish language across all departmental services. Will he make a commitment to recognise, in terms of library provision, the growth in the Irish-medium sector of education and the general increasing interest in the Irish language, and ask for details to remedy the underprovision in our libraries?


This year, £1·7 million will be spent on books and materials for our libraries. Mr McElduff asked about the breakdown of expenditure on materials in English, Irish and Ulster Scots. He will not be surprised to hear that the overwhelming majority of the money will be spent on English language material because that is where the demand lies — that is what is being used. However, there is specialist demand in some libraries for Irish material, just as there is for Ulster Scots material.
At the moment, the difficulty lies in identifying that need, library by library. Under the electronic libraries for Northern Ireland (ELFNI) project, we will be able to do that. However, it will be no surprise to the Member that there is little or no demand in Newtownards library for materials in Irish, just as there would be little demand for Ulster-Scots material in Coalisland library. We look to meet the demands of library users and to increase the use of libraries.
We take our responsibilities seriously. Foras na Gaeilge is responsible for promoting the Irish language. It is funded by, and answerable to, the Assembly, as is Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch. Those matters are being addressed. The argument for extra resources can be made across a huge range of needs. However, we have made strides.


Does the Minister agree that there must be a more conjoined and proactive approach by his Department and the Department of Education if Ulster Scots is to be accorded the equality of status it was promised in the Belfast Agreement?


Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch has responsibility for the promotion of Ulster Scots and has made great advances in language and culture, and in the building of Ulster-Scots groups. However, there is still a great deal of work to do. There are matters that can be discussed with the Department of Education and, in particular, the education and library boards. It seems to me that there is a demand for Ulster-Scots language and culture in several schools. I see that demand on a regular basis, and I am sure the Member does also. I am sure that the Department of Education will take that demand seriously and examine how our young people can be better informed.

Agriculture and Rural Development
Vision Action Plan

1. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development when she expects to publish the vision action plan; and to make a statement.
(AQO1442/01)


In early March I announced my acceptance of 11 measures, recommended in the vision report, which could be implemented without additional resources. I have also made budget bids in respect of recommendations on the environment, strengthening the food chain, developing people, animal health, research and development and rural development. Those recommendations were widely supported in the consultation exercise and were capable of being turned quickly into policy proposals. I am now working on an action plan, which I hope to be able to publish in late June or early July.


The vision plan calls for radical change in the industry. Does the Department also need to change?


The vision exercise is one of several strands of work that are coming together and that highlight the need to examine the Department’s structures. Others include our commitment to e-business, the review of education and research and development, the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy and the independent review of our handling of the foot-and-mouth disease crisis, as well as major policy reviews on tuberculosis, brucellosis, forestry and fisheries.
To meet those pressures, I have commissioned officials to undertake an internal departmental modernisation programme. That will involve a review of our aims, priorities and strategy to ensure that they reflect not only the outcome of the vision exercise, but also a more modern approach, better suited to the developing needs of our customers and the wider society.


Has the Minister decided to establish a food body, as recommended in the vision action plan? If so, when will that body come into being?


The Member may be aware that I have set up a working group, as recommended by the vision report, to examine whether there should be a food body, and if so, what its remit should be. I expect that group to report by the end of June. I will make a decision on the food body depending on what arises from the report.


What consideration have the Minister and the Department given to supporting projects such as Taste of Ulster in the vision plan in order to promote Northern Ireland produce?


I am not sure whether there has been any reference in the report to projects such as Taste of Ulster, but the Department assesses projects on their merit. Recently we funded Taste of Ulster at the fisheries exhibition in Brussels. We examine projects individually, and we support projects as we see fit. We are awaiting a business plan from those behind Taste of Ulster.

Kilkeel Harbour

2. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what steps she is taking to provide funding for the development of a new pier at Kilkeel harbour.
(AQO1457/01)


A new pier at Kilkeel harbour would form part of the proposals for the redevelopment of the harbour. The total cost has been put at around £30 million. Completion of technical studies, including work on the design and wave climate of the proposed new outer harbour, will allow assessment of the feasibility of the proposals. In addition, the scope to pursue that as a public-private partnership must be explored, and the project must be subject to an economic appraisal. No formal request for funding has been made by the Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority. Such a request would have to compete against other bids for support. It is too early to indicate if and when funding will be made available.


The new Kilkeel harbour project has been a long saga. I am somewhat surprised by one aspect of the Minister’s reply regarding the Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority. The authority told me that it has inadequate funding to pursue the matter. That is a fairly large gap in the programme, but many studies have been carried out over the years, and consultation has taken place with the onshore and offshore fishing interests. Is there any timescale to allow Kilkeel and other harbours to modernise in order to compete in a difficult market, which is becoming increasingly more difficult for our Northern Ireland fishing fleet and its onshore add-on value factories?


Specific provision is made in the Department for harbour development schemes. That enables the Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority to access funds, subject to satisfactory economic appraisal of need and business cases. In addition, resources including match-funding from the Department are available under the current round of European structural funds. My officials have been in close contact with the Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority in connection with three aspects of work to Kilkeel harbour that the authority has identified as priority projects for the safety and continued viability of port users. I have therefore advanced those projects for funding under the current initiative, which was negotiated recently by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister with the Treasury, and the Executive programme funds. However, they will have to be considered alongside other competing priorities.
I also looked to the review of the fishing industry which I announced earlier this year, and which I expect to launch shortly, to consider and advise on the longer-term aspects of the strategic development of the fishing industry in Northern Ireland, including the appropriate infrastructure to promote and support the industry in a safe and forward-looking manner.

E-government Initiatives

3. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to report on progress in her Department in introducing e-government initiatives.
(AQO1450/01)


For some time my Department has been making progress on introducing e-government initiatives in several areas that can change how business is conducted between the Department and its customers. My Department is engaged in progressing several reviews and initiatives to enable it to meet more effectively the challenges of the agrifood industry and the wider needs of rural communities in the new millennium.


What electronic services are available for farmers who apply for farm subsidies?


Over the past two years, data held on the Department’s cattle database — APHIS Online — has increasingly been used to preprint animal details on subsidy application forms, and that helps to reduce the administrative burden on farmers. Over 43% of farmers now have their subsidies paid directly into their bank accounts, which is speedier, more secure and more convenient than payable order.
Work is under way to facilitate the submission of applications for farm subsidies via the Internet. Our aim is that applicants under the 2003 sheep annual premium will be able to submit their application in this way. The online claim facility will then be rolled out progressively to other schemes over the next two years. A wide range of information about farm subsidies, including blank application forms, is already available on the grants and subsidies web site.
The rural portal web site forms a central part of the Department’s e-government strategy. It provides farmers and growers with a single signposted access point to online information and services. It provides a one-stop shop for the farming community, enabling many services to be accessed from home. To date, about 9,000 farmers have been able to access these services on computer, and the aim is that all farmers will be able to access it by 2005. We will also enable farmers to reskill and to up-skill to do that.


The Programme for Government is committed to making 100% of key services available online. Does the Minister regard all the services provided to farmers by her Department as being key services, or are some areas excluded?


The Department of Agriculture is on target in its commitment to the Programme for Government. Nine thousand farmers, roughly one third, have access to online services. By 2005 we hope that farmers can access all online services and that all will avail of it. Farmers who do not wish to use online services may continue to use paper.


I welcome the Minister’s progress on e-government. Surely it is another way of including townland names in her customers’ addresses, as these are all in the countryside?


That is stretching supplementary questions a bit too far. Mr Francie Molloy is not in the Chamber, so question 4 will fall.

Local Produce

5. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what steps she is taking to promote (a) the purchase of local agricultural produce in Northern Ireland; and (b) the export of local produce to EU and non-EU countries.
(AQO1456/01)


I have provided financial support of £1·5 million to market Northern Ireland red meat for its quality, and £400,000 has been earmarked for marketing in the pig sector. In addition, my schedule of visits is planned to lend support to local producers and food companies. I regularly attend major events such as international food fairs, the Balmoral Show and Ireland’s International Food, Drink and Catering Exhibition (IFEX). I have actively participated in campaigns to promote local produce run by the Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU), retailers and the Livestock and Meat Commission for Northern Ireland (LMC).
I have also met with major food retailers in Northern Ireland to encourage greater use of locally sourced produce. Under the Northern Ireland Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity I have recently launched a joint marketing initiative promotion scheme for fisheries and a marketing of quality agricultural products grants scheme to assist the food industry in marketing and promoting its products. One of my main priorities is to enable the resumption of Northern Ireland beef exports. I am pressing the EU Commission to relax the conditions of the date-based export scheme to make it more commercially viable for meat plants that wish to export beef.


How many farmers have applied for the schemes under the rural development programme? In order to promote local produce, will the Minister encourage people to ask where the food that they purchase in supermarkets, shops, restaurants and other food outlets has been produced?


I cannot give the Member a detailed response on the take up of schemes because some of the schemes have been introduced and others have not. However, I will inform the Member as soon as I have the figures. I use every opportunity to encourage people to purchase local produce. In particular, I encourage housewives and house husbands, when they do their shopping, to enquire at the meat and vegetable stalls whether the food is sourced in Northern Ireland.


The Minister knows that in the drive to boost local purchase of Northern Ireland produce it is important to educate the public about the quality and standards of the food that they eat. In the light of a previous answer that the Minister gave me, which revealed that beef labelling rules do not apply to processed foods such as sausages, pies and canned beef, will she consider introducing a voluntary labelling scheme for Northern Ireland-sourced processed produce, so that a local campaign based on high-quality content may be mounted?


The Member is aware that the EU regulates beef labelling. A voluntary labelling scheme would be just that — voluntary. People would not be required to participate in it. Food labelling is a matter for the Food Standards Agency.


Given what the Minister has said on that issue, does she agree that there is great concern about some imported products — derived from chicken and beef — that end up in the catering trade, where there are not the same stringent conditions on food quality? Does she agree that Government purchasing departments should be sensitive to quality issues implicit in the use of imported food products?


I am aware of local industry concerns about food safety. However, I assure the Member that all imported foods must be checked and certified by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. I would encourage caterers — and have done so publicly — to use locally sourced and locally produced foods in the catering industry.

Rural Development

6. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what support she has given to women in the context of rural development.
(AQO1428/01)


Under the capacity-building element of the Northern Ireland Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity delivered by the rural community networks there will be opportunities for rural women to develop the skills, knowledge and experience that they need to play a part in the significant economic, environmental and social changes that are impacting on rural areas. Under the same programme the local regeneration programme delivered by the Rural Development Council and the Rural Development Division provides opportunities for women’s groups and organisations, among others, to bring forward proposals for consideration. Those proposals can have an economic, social or environmental focus or combine elements of all three. Several women’s organisations and other bodies have submitted applications to the Rural Development Council for consideration, and those are currently being processed.
The LEADER+ programme is a special EU community initiative designed to encourage and assist the rural community to develop its own areas in accordance with its own needs. Women comprise one of the priority target groups on which LEADER+ will focus. The LEADER action groups will submit their business plans for approval shortly. I anticipate that those will feature various initiatives targeted at women, with a particular focus on microbusiness.
The Rural Development Division is working with the Women’s Resource Development Agency, the Rural Community Network and rural women’s networks in carrying out an analysis to assess the needs of rural women. That work is being completed, and I look forward to the outcome.


Several sources of funding and other levels of support have been mentioned. The Minister is aware that many organisations are in danger of collapse because of a lack of funding. The rural women’s network, which recently made a presentation to the Committee of the Centre, is one example. What specific measures will the Minister’s Department be taking to give leadership to the rural women’s network and other rural women’s organisations?


I am aware of these matters. My officials and representatives from the Women’s Resource Development Agency and the rural women’s network will be meeting consultants in early June to address the concerns that the Member has raised, and I know of the concerns about core funding.

Returns for Local Producers

7. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what progress has been made in ensuring that local producers get a fair return on their produce from (a) meat processors; and (b) large supermarket chains; and to make a statement.
(AQO1454/01)


The question of fair returns is essentially a commercial matter between producers, processors and retailers. However, the long-term interests of the industry lie in effective partnerships between all parts of the food chain. I encourage the industry to develop such partnerships to ensure that a transparent and fair price is paid for Northern Irish meat.
To help the industry obtain the best return for its output, a range of support is available to assist with improvement in quality and marketing performance. For example, to ensure that Northern Irish beef is marketed to best advantage, I have provided £1·5 million of support to the Red Meat Strategy, which was developed between all parts of the industry and the relevant Department.
An important part of the strategy is to focus on premium markets that can provide a premium return for our beef. However, to service those markets, we must produce top-quality cattle. There has been a decline in the quality of finished cattle in recent years, and to reverse that trend, I have secured £2 million a year under the Programme for Government for a Beef Quality Initiative.
Following claims that the price differential between Northern Ireland and GB pigs was due to differences in quality, I commissioned a study which showed that there is room for improvement in the confirmation of Northern Irish pig carcasses, and officials will be working with the industry to address that. Some of the funds that I have allocated to support marketing in the pig sector are being used to improve quality.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Does the Minister agree that, to gain a fair price for farmers and primary producers, the implementation of the £1·5 million strategy, which includes the Beef Quality Initiative, depends on farmers getting paid for producing quality beef? They have not been paid for that until now. In the vision exercise, could further gains be made by focusing more on farmer co-operatives to increase the strength of primary producers?


There is support for farmers’ co-operatives. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has facilitated and supported farmers’ attempts to form co-operatives, and it continues to do so.


Will the Minister establish a fair-pricing investigation into the real distribution of profits in the agrifood sector, and follow up the results with a fair practice pricing code? Such a code would enable consumers to identify products that had generated a fair return for farmers and other primary producers.


Fair pricing is a reserved matter; therefore, it is not the Northern Ireland Assembly’s responsibility. The Competitions Commission investigated the allegation that processors were not offering fair prices and found no evidence of what were purported to be unfair practices by them.

"Closed Herds"

8. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development whether she has considered rewarding the owners of "closed herds" by allowing higher rates of compensation in the event of a tuberculosis or brucellosis outbreak.
(AQO1420/01)


Under current legislation the Department can pay compensation only for animals that it slaughters because of tuberculosis (TB) or brucellosis. The Government have no provision or precedent for compensating any other losses, and I have no plans to introduce any.


Does the Minister foresee the introduction of a financial package designed to encourage the establishment of more "closed herds" in Northern Ireland? Such a package would include double-fencing to prevent contact with neighbouring herds, and assistance with trials of vaccines against bovine tuberculosis infection. Does the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development value the concept of "closed herds" as a tool to prevent the spread of tuberculosis and brucellosis?


I have no plans for such a package. "Closed herds" are not an official concept; some farmers operate them as a precaution, which I welcome. However, I urge all farmers to play their part in assisting us to fight brucellosis. Through the Department’s veterinary services, the measures that it has taken and its review, it will do everything possible to reduce the incidence of brucellosis and to eradicate it. That can be done only with the co-operation of farmers.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. My Colleague, Councillor Mickey McAnespie, and I recently met farmers in the Carrickmore and wider mid-Tyrone area who are anxious about the unduly high incidences of TB among cattle. Local farmers believe that not enough is being done to identify and eradicate the root cause of the problem. Will the Minister meet a representative group of mid-Tyrone farmers to hear their concerns so that she can take appropriate action, or will she task her officials to do so?


I assure Mr McElduff that I am aware of the areas where there is a worrying growth in the incidence of TB.
The Department is taking the increase seriously, and a review of its policy on TB and how its eradication measures can be improved is being finalised. I meet the farming unions regularly to discuss the issue, but if Members wish to meet me to discuss specific issues, I will consider their requests.


Question 9 is in the name of Mr Gibson, but he is not in the Chamber.

Modernisation Programme

10. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what measures have been taken to initiate the modernisation programme in her Department; and to make a statement.
(AQO1443/01)


I announced my intention to initiate a major internal modernisation programme in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in my speech at the International Food, Drink and Catering Exhibition (IFEX). This will include a review of the Department’s aims, priorities and structures to ensure that they are best suited to the developing needs of its customers and of society, and I have created a modernisation unit in the Department to advance it. The unit is headed at assistant secretary level and reports directly to the departmental management board.


Why has the Minister decided to initiate this modernisation programme?


The vision report, among other things, highlighted the need for the agrifood industry to change in response to current challenges and opportunities. It would be unthinkable to expect the industry to change without also examining the Department. The Department’s structures and working methods have been in place for decades, during which there have been many changes in the industry and in the Department’s responsibilities.
Several other strands of work are coming together that have highlighted the need for restructuring. They include the Department’s commitment to e-business; the O’Hare Report on the Department’s education and R&D provision; the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy; the independent review of the Department’s handling of the foot-and-mouth disease crisis; and major policy reviews on tuberculosis, brucellosis, forestry and fisheries. With all of that coming together, it would not make sense for the Department to fail to determine how its structures can best suit the needs of the changing modern industry.


The time for questions to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development is up.
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Deputy Speaker.]

First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Mr Speaker: Question 3 in the name of Mr Molloy has been withdrawn and will receive a written answer. Questions 1 and 2 stand in the names of Mr Gibson and Mr Paisley Jnr respectively. However, they are not in their places.

Jubilee Tour

Mr George Savage: 4. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what assessment the Executive have made of Her Majesty The Queen’s Jubilee tour of Northern Ireland.
(AQO1422/01)

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Executive have not taken an overall view of Her Majesty The Queen’s Golden Jubilee visit to Northern Ireland. However, we were delighted that the programme for the visit provided opportunities for people from all walks of life, and from across Northern Ireland, to participate in the events and to show the warmth of their feelings and good wishes for Her Majesty in her Golden Jubilee year.

Mr George Savage: Does the First Minister take encouragement from the Queen’s statement at Stormont, which welcomed
"the real sense of normality that has over recent years been returning to the lives of ordinary people"?
Does he also agree that the visit was a great example of that normality?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I endorse the Member’s comments. In the well-judged remarks that she made in the Great Hall of this Building, Her Majesty referred to
"a real sense of normality",
albeit one
"tempered from time to time by moments of disappointment and pessimism".
We should examine other similar events to develop further that sense of normality. In the context of Her Majesty’s visit to Northern Ireland, it has occurred to me that an invitation by the Government of the Irish Republic to Her Majesty to pay a state visit to the Republic of Ireland would be a sign of developing normality.

Mr Speaker: Question 5 stands in the name of Mr Ford. However, he is not in his place.

World Debt

Mr Eddie McGrady: 6. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, in the light of recent coverage about world debt, what steps are being taken to ensure that the views of the Northern Ireland Executive are represented at the G8 summit in Canada at the end of June 2002.
(AQO1448/01)

Rt Hon David Trimble: Ministers are aware of the difficulties of heavily indebted poor countries, where resources are diverted to interest payments on debt and are unavailable for vital programmes such as health and education. Ten billion pounds are spent annually on servicing a debt of over £200 billion in those countries — money that could be spent much more productively. Responsibility for international development lies with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development. Therefore, there are no plans for the Executive to consider the issue of world debt in the near future. We will not be making representations to the UK Government in advance of the G8 summit next month.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I am disappointed that OFMDFM will not be making representations on the matter. I draw the attention of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to the fact that the people of Northern Ireland are concerned about international matters, and it is appropriate that the Assembly have an opportunity to make their views known.
Are the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister aware that only 85% of the promises made in 1999 at the Cologne conference on world debt have been acted on? The payment of interest on the debts means that basic health and education standards are not being met. An estimated 19,000 children die in developing countries every day.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member has put his question.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I appreciate Mr McGrady’s interest in world debt, and his concern was evident in his supplementary question. However, this is a reserved matter, so it would be more appropriate to raise it in the House of Commons, of which Mr McGrady is a Member. The United Kingdom Government’s policy is very similar to his suggestion. The Chancellor has played a significant part in the measures to relieve the debt burden, but it is a complex issue. The burden arose partly because of changed economic circumstances, but largely as a result of self-inflicted problems such as the wars that have taken place in too many developing countries. Often, we are dealing with a symptom, but it should be addressed as sympathetically as possible.

Racially Motivated Hate Crimes

Mr Gerry McHugh: 7. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on the problem of racially motivated hate crimes.
(AQO1436/01)

Hate Crimes

Mr Sean Neeson: 20. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to give an update on plans to introduce legislation to tackle hate crimes.
(AQO1425/01)

Mr Mark Durkan: With your permission, Mr Speaker, we shall answer questions 7 and 20 together. We deplore all racially motivated and sectarian attacks, which have no place in civilised society. Criminal justice, including the criminal law on racially motivated and sectarian crime, is a reserved matter. The Secretary of State has announced his intention to consult on the scope for strengthening the law in that area, and we await with interest the publication of his proposals.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Member for his statement that sectarian crime has no place in society. Should Members be more proactive in encouraging the public to embrace ethnic minorities, particularly those who come from abroad to work for a long time, who often experience difficulties?

Mr Mark Durkan: We must ensure that people are much more aware and sensitive to the needs of, and pressures on, members of ethnic minority communities, and the frequent insidious attacks on them. The Administration have been trying to examine those issues and to hear from those who are directly affected. The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency examined the pernicious effects of such crime on ethnic minority communities. We must do more to promote the equality and rights of everyone, including those from ethnic minorities.

Mr Ken Robinson: Does the Minister agree that any form of intolerance is to be deplored? Does he further agree that greater community support is required for the police if race crimes are to be combated, including support from Mr McHugh’s party?

Mr Mark Durkan: Any crime victims would, understandably, wish to turn to the relevant statutory agencies, including the police service, for support and assistance, and Members should do everything to try to encourage them and to ensure that they can. Members of ethnic minority communities, who are perhaps unaware of the subtleties and difficulties of our situation, instinctively turn to the police and other services. It is important that they get that support and that the police service be able to respond with due sensitivity, as well as alacrity.

Mr Jim Shannon: Can the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister confirm that minority and majority viewpoints will be protected under the equality legislation? Many people are concerned that the equality legislation, as it stands, may be bogged down in the courts for months or years. Can the Ministers confirm that that will not happen?

Mr Speaker: I am not sure that I can give the Minister guidance on that. I think he is on his own.

Mr Mark Durkan: It is the usual acoustics problem in the Chamber. I am not quite sure of the content of the Member’s question. It seemed to be that Members are concerned that the equality legislation will be unworkable and bogged down in the courts. I am not sure if the Member is suggesting that, due to equality legislation, issues relating to racially motivated crime will take a long time in the courts. I do not see a connection between the legislation and measures to tackle racially motivated crime. However, if the question is about the delay of the single equality Bill, I remind the Member that that has nothing to do with criminal justice.

Gender Strategy

Mr Alex Maskey: 8. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what resources have been deployed for the development of the gender strategy as proposed in the Programme for Government.
(AQO1427/01)

Rt Hon David Trimble: Within our Department’s Equality and Social Needs Division, the gender policy unit was established to promote gender equality throughout the work of the Executive. Its remit covers women, men, people of differing sexual orientation, people with or without dependents and people with differing marital status. The unit is to bring forward a gender equality strategy this year. It has a complement of four staff and has been allocated £121,000 from the departmental running costs for 2002-03. Those resources will be kept under review as the strategy is developed and implemented, and we will bid for more if need arises.

Mr Alex Maskey: We are well into 2002 and the development of the gender strategy is behind schedule. I wonder whether the First and the Deputy First Ministers might feel it necessary to enhance the complement of staff or the time that the existing staff have to develop the gender strategy.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I am not sure why the Member thinks that it is behind schedule, as work is being undertaken. A consultation seminar has been held, involving voluntary agencies and Departments, to gather views on key issues. That has been followed up by a series of meetings with the relevant voluntary agencies. The work is under way, and I have no reason to believe that the target will not be met.

Mr Sam Foster: Can the First Minister further outline what steps have been taken to develop the gender strategy?

Rt Hon David Trimble: In addition to the seminar and meetings, we are currently consulting Departments on the key issues that will inform the strategy. The strategy will have relevance throughout the Administration, and, therefore, it is appropriate that we consult on it. I remain confident that the Department will meet its objective of evolving a strategy this year.

Age Discrimination

Mr Kieran McCarthy: 9. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what action is being taken to tackle age discrimination.
(AQO1426/01)

Mr Mark Durkan: We are determined to tackle age discrimination, and our proposals for legislation will be available for consultation next year. We intend that the legislation will be in operation in Northern Ireland before the deadline of 2006 imposed by the European Directive.
In our consultation on the general content and scope of the single equality Bill, we asked some general questions about age discrimination. There are many complex issues to be addressed. We want to ensure that we take account of expert advice and experience elsewhere in advancing this work.
Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires public authorities to give due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity between persons in nine separate categories, including persons of different ages. Under the promoting social inclusion initiative we are committed to set up a working group by December to examine the causes of social exclusion among older people and to develop a cross-departmental strategy for tackling those issues.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: Will the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister convey their response about tackling age discrimination to the Minister for Employment and Learning? Her Department has withdrawn the premium rate concession to people over the age of 60 who wish to avail of learndirect. The reason given, which could be construed as an insult to those people, is that learning and priority has been accorded to those in greatest need of help who are of working age, and, therefore, contribute to the needs of the economy. The Department for Employment and Learning is saying that people over 60 years of age do not contribute to the economy.

Mr Speaker: The Member has made his question clear. Perhaps the Minister would reply.

Mr Mark Durkan: The answer is yes. We will relay the points that the Member has raised to the Minister for Employment and Learning.

Mr Alan McFarland: Are there any plans to extend the powers of the Equality Commission to cover age discrimination?

Mr Mark Durkan: We have decided in principle that the powers of the Equality Commission should be extended to include age, and indeed — for Members’ information — sexual orientation. I offer that as a mark of our commitment to outlawing all forms of discrimination. We will consult on that when we advance proposals for the single equality Bill.

Mr Peter Weir: Will the Deputy First Minister take the opportunity to make a public call to North Down Borough Council to reverse its disgraceful decision not to fund Age Concern — an organisation that helps the aged? That decision was taken on the basis that to give funding to Age Concern would be in breach of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Mr Mark Durkan: I am not aware of that issue, and I do not think that it would be appropriate for me make calls to a particular council in relation to its funding policy. However, I would be very surprised to hear that section 75 requirements could somehow preclude, or constitute a difficulty, in relation to funding groups that work on issues relating to older people.

British-Irish Council

Mr John Dallat: 10. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on the British-Irish Council.
(AQO1435/01)

Rt Hon David Trimble: At its inaugural meeting on 17 December 1999, the British-Irish Council (BIC) agreed to advance work on several initial priority areas: environment; drugs; social inclusion; the knowledge economy and transport. At the second summit meeting on 30 November 2001, two further priority areas of work were agreed — telemedicine and tourism.
Work is being done in each of the sectors through working groups of senior officials. Work flowing from those groups led to a ministerial meeting on transport on 19 December 2000; two ministerial meetings on the environment held on 2 October 2000 and 25 February 2002, and one on drugs held on 22 March 2002. Further ministerial meetings are planned. A third summit meeting, which is scheduled to take place on 14 June in Jersey, will focus on the knowledge economy, and a fourth, focusing on social inclusion, is scheduled to take place in November.
In addition to meetings on priority areas, a BIC conference addressing the digital divide took place in Jersey on 24-26 April. A report will be presented to the summit meeting in June. A conference on targeting the proceeds of the drugs trade took place in Guernsey in May. Further conferences in the BIC drugs sector are planned.

Mr John Dallat: I welcome the Minister’s positive statement. Will the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister take this opportunity to recognise the major benefits of the knowledge economy and encourage the strategic investment body to ensure investment in that crucial area?

Rt Hon David Trimble: The BIC is one of the new institutions created under the agreement and is being developed in parallel with other elements of the agreement. The response of all member Administrations to the programme has been positive and wholehearted. A conference for decision-makers on bridging the digital divide took place in Jersey, and provided an opportunity for representatives from Northern Ireland Departments to hear first-hand about models of good practice and experience of that issue.
The question on the strategic investment body is appropriate. It is, as the Member said, a crucial area and one that we are anxious to advance. In developing that initiative, we will want to take advantage of best practice across all elements of the BIC to maximise what we can discover.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Does the First Minister believe that the British-Irish Council will be in place in a year’s time, or does he agree with his Colleague, Lord Kilclooney, that, because of the behaviour of IRA/Sinn Féin, the entire agreement could collapse before then?
Will he comment on the views expressed by his party colleague, Jeffrey Donaldson, that his party should collapse the Executive because of the involvement of Sinn Féin in international terrorism? Are those comments simply headline-grabbing statements to prevent the haemorrhage of members from his party to the DUP?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I congratulate the Member for the width of his supplementary question, but I am slightly surprised at his use of the term "headline-grabbing", as if such tactics would ever be used by any party other than his own.
We have dealt with the British-Irish Council, and I have detailed the meetings that have taken place and will take place within that context. From those comments, the Member can see the good things that are being done. We have all known from the outset about the things that could threaten the existence of this institution. Indeed, some of those threats have come from the Member and his Colleagues. Nonetheless, we endeavour to see this being implemented and hope that all parties to the agreement will carry out all their obligations under it.

John Taylor: Mr Sammy Wilson, who has deserted east Belfast to live in east Antrim for non-political reasons, mentioned my name. Does the First Minister recall that the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body was a failure because it met in secret and did not report to parliamentarians or to the people? Will the British-Irish Council report on its good work?

Rt Hon David Trimble: As the Member knows, following each meeting of the British-Irish Council and, indeed, of the North/South Ministerial Council, statements are made and matters put into the public domain. Consequently, there is an openness and a transparency that is highly desirable in any government institution.
We very much want to see responsibility to the British-Irish Council being maintained. We are, of course, conscious of the fact that the Assembly’s existence, which the Member worked very hard to achieve, is one of the things that the people of Northern Ireland regard as a very significant benefit.
Those who sit in the corner and carp cannot point to any similar achievement of their own.

Small Employers’ Threshold

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 11. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on the small employers’ threshold in disability discrimination law.
(AQO1447/01)

Mr Mark Durkan: The EU Framework Directive requires the removal by December 2006 of the existing exemption from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 for employers with fewer than 15 employees. Consultation on the removal of the threshold and the timescale for doing so will be carried out later this year in Northern Ireland. We propose to implement the removal ahead of the required deadline of 2006 as set by the EU.
Ms Lewsley:
This action compensates for many people’s disappointment that the single equality Bill was not introduced. Has a target date been set for the implementation of the legislation?

Mr Mark Durkan: The Executive recognise the need to extend protection to all disabled employees, so we intend to remove the threshold in advance of the EU’s 2006 deadline. Our target date is January 2004, and consultation will be carried out later in 2002.

Northern Ireland Economic Council/Northern Ireland Economic Research Centre

Mr Alex Attwood: 12. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what plans there are for the future of (a) the Northern Ireland Economic Council; and (b) the Northern Ireland Economic Research Centre.
(AQO1433/01)

Rt Hon David Trimble: After a review of the Northern Ireland Economic Council (NIEC) and the provision of independent economic advice and research, the Executive agreed on 17 May that they should seek to improve the supply of economic advice by setting up a new research body combining the roles of the NIEC and the Northern Ireland Economic Research Centre (NIERC). Consultation has commenced with the NIEC, the NIERC, the Committee of the Centre, the Committee for Finance and Personnel and the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and it will continue until 19 June 2002.

Mr Alex Attwood: Does the First Minister accept that it is important that the Government continue to have an independent mechanism of scrutiny and overview when they are carrying out economic policy planning and assessment? Does he agree that independent assessment is important, particularly as we unpick many decades of unfettered Civil Service power in the North? Why did considerable time elapse before the Executive’s review of the matter in May?

Rt Hon David Trimble: It is right that those important matters should be considered carefully and deliberately. The Executive have agreed to set up a new research body, and consultation will take place. I assure Mr Attwood that a key objective is to ensure that the Administration have genuinely independent advice of the best quality. We need people who can consider the situation objectively, without being responsible for the decisions, matters and policies on which they advise, so that they are not influenced in their opinion. We appreciate that open and independent advice lies at the heart of good policy decision-making in the Executive. It is our urgent desire to receive such advice, which is partly why we took time to pursue the matter. The Executive will be able to be certain that the advice that they receive is genuinely independent.

The Speaker: I do not see Mr McMenamin in his place.

Constituency Visit

Mr David McClarty: 14. asked the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister whether there are any plans to visit his constituency.
(AQO1421/01)

Rt Hon David Trimble: We have no plans to make a joint visit to the East Londonderry constituency. However, we visited the area on two occasions recently. On 12 April we officially opened the new Causeway Hospital and, more recently, we were there to see riders and spectators at a practice session for the North West 200.

Mr David McClarty: Is the First Minister aware of the deep concern in my constituency of East Londonderry, and in other constituencies, following the revelation of the Republican movement’s involvement in Colombia in last night’s Channel 4 programme ‘Dispatches: The Colombian Connection’? Does he agree that its involvement in South America calls into question its commitment to peace and democracy?

Mr Speaker: Order. Geography was never my strongest point, but the last time that I looked at a map, I did not notice that Mr McClarty’s constituency extended to Colombia. I have heard it suggested here that he may intend to go there on holiday, but, given the experiences of some other tourists there, it might not be best advised for him to do so.

Culture, Arts and Leisure

Mr Speaker: Question 7, standing in the name of Mr Byrne, has been transferred to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and question 8, standing in the name of Mr Jim Wilson, has been withdrawn and will receive a written answer.

Participation in Sporting Activities

Mr Gerry McHugh: 1. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, in the light of his objective to increase recorded levels of active participation in sporting activities, to outline (a) the time-limited targets set in pursuance of this objective; and (b) the measures being put in place to ensure that those targets are achieved.
(AQO1453/01)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The target, including time limits set for increasing recorded levels of active participation in sporting activities, is 49% by the end of 2002-03, against a baseline of 48% for 2000-01. The proposed actions to achieve that target are increasing the number of sporting opportunities in schools, communities and the sporting network; increasing the number of volunteers equipped to develop the participation of young people in sport and trained to encourage lifelong participation; establishing the Northern Ireland Network Centre of the UK Sports Institute to increase opportunities in Northern Ireland; identifying and supporting talented performers in Northern Ireland; and raising the standard of coaching for high-level performers.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Minister referred to an increase of 1% a year. The targets are reasonable, but, given the health of some sectors of the community, perhaps greater encouragement to participate in sport should be given by targeting funding at organisations, such as schools or further education colleges, where more impact could be made. If the targets are to be met and surpassed, the number of people who participate actively in sport must be increased.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: This is the first year that the Department has set targets and, therefore, it has inadequate data with which to work. When setting targets, the Department must take heed of the level of available resources. Achievable targets are important, and they will be reviewed annually. I do not disagree with the tone of Mr McHugh’s remarks: there are barriers to participation in sport. Sport is beneficial on several levels. A recent report from Queen’s University claims that medical costs for those people who engage in physical activity are 30% lower than for those people who lead a more sedentary lifestyle. Participation in sport lowers heart disease and provides many other health benefits. Therefore, in addition to the pleasure of taking part in sport, there are financial and economic reasons for doing so.

Match-funding

Mr Conor Murphy: 2. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure if he will consider match-funding the moneys raised by voluntary organisations for sporting provision.
(AQO1418/01)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I am aware of the positive contribution of voluntary organisations to the development of sport in Northern Ireland. I would like to be in a position to match the funding that those organisations raise for sporting provision, but resources do not permit that.

Mr Conor Murphy: The Minister should be the master of his own resources. He should determine his budget in discussion with the Assembly Committee and his Executive Colleagues. Given that he feels this, why did he feel it necessary to interrupt important ministerial business several weeks ago to vote against an Executive Colleague’s being able to enjoy the same flexibility to decide on, and be the master of, her budget? He voted for a motion that required the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to match the money raised by friends of hospitals groups. Does the Minister not consider his actions to be hypocritical, given that his voting against his ministerial Colleague was inconsistent with the answer that he just gave?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I will try to respond to that long, convoluted second question.

Mr Conor Murphy: It was a simple point.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I will respond without prompting, if the Member does not mind.
With regard to matching funding for sport, the Department is already providing up to 70% for capital funding, so the Member is asking it to reduce that from 70% to 50 %. The Department is also funding up to 90% of revenue for sports development. Under the Member’s proposal, that would drop to 50%. With regard to Exchequer funding for sports development, we are already providing up to 50%, so funding from voluntary organisations is being matched in many areas.

Mr Conor Murphy: Perhaps the Minister could answer the question.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I ask the Member to be patient. If he does not shout at me, he will be able to hear me better.
With regard to sports, the data is less precise than would be expected for health and social services, so if the Member is proposing that we should match-fund the money raised by voluntary organisations for sport, he should say what sort of money he is talking about. We estimate that up to £50 million is raised by voluntary organisations, and it is completely beyond the Department’s reach to match such amounts. There is a connection between sport and health, but they are two different matters. Mr Murphy would be better to ask questions that relate to my responsibilities.

Mr David Hilditch: The Minister kindly supplied me with some information on the sports match-funding that is available in England, and that has distributed some £28 million among 72 different sports. I thank the Minister for his assessment. Has he looked at the possibility of introducing such a scheme?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The funding is constantly under review, but, as Mr Hilditch knows, we are constrained by resources. The money that we give to the Sports Council amounts to £2·4 million, a small amount. It is difficult to consider other initiatives with such a level of funding, but we keep the matter under review. I value the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure’s ideas for initiatives.

Visitor Amenities

Mr Eddie McGrady: 3. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what capital and revenue funding will be provided to visitor amenities in Northern Ireland during the current financial year.
(AQO1449/01)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure already provides revenue funding to several visitor amenities, such as the Ulster Museum, the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum, the Ulster American Folk Park, Armagh County Museum and the Armagh Observatory and Planetarium. The funding will amount to just over £12 million for this financial year. At present, no moneys are set aside for capital development or, indeed, to resource the 400 other facilities identified in research work for the local museum and heritage review.

Mr Eddie McGrady: The sums mentioned by the Minister are attributable to museums only. The Minister will be aware of the problems that many visitor centres are experiencing because of the economic climate, especially the tourist trade. Does the Minister agree that those visitor centres should not be considered profit-making enterprises, although they should strive to enhance their income as much as possible? As visitor centres are enduring features of our culture and heritage, would moneys not be better spent on them than on one-off sponsored concerts?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: It is difficult for me to see a way to fund all 400 local museum and heritage sites. My Department is looking at how we approach and prioritise support. That is where the current local museum and heritage review comes in. That review is with the Department of the Environment awaiting response, which will allow us to produce the document and an implementation plan. It specifically looks at the 400 local museum and heritage sites. Mr McGrady and other Members will understand that it is impossible for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure to fund all the sites, so large is the network.
The Northern Ireland Events Company provides a different function for concerts and events held on the Stormont estate — it underwrites potential losses. If a concert does not make a loss, the Events Company provides no money. If a concert makes a loss, there is a limit up to which that loss will be underwritten, which is to ensure that the concert takes place. Thus far, the concerts have been successful; they have promoted the image of Northern Ireland in particular, which is important. After 25 years of our unfortunate, chaotic history, we need to try harder to improve our image outside Northern Ireland. Therefore, that is where the Events Company comes in.

John Taylor: Does the Minister agree that we could have an overprovision of amenity centres in Northern Ireland, and that he should show greater caution in approving further centres in view of the experiences we have had at the Navan Centre, the Armagh Planetarium and now at St Patrick’s Centre in Downpartick? Will he ensure that future applications have proper marketing machinery in place, so that centres do not increasingly burden our ratepayers?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: This Department or, indeed, its predecessor, did not have a role in approving any of those cases. As far as I understand, Down District Council took the lead on decisions on St Patrick’s Centre. The Armagh Planetarium has been in operation for some 35 years and is a valuable facility. That is why we are looking at proposals to ensure that the planetarium remains, and at ways in which we can redevelop it. The Navan Centre is the property of trustees in Armagh. As such, it is their responsibility.
I agree with the Member’s subtext. We have a proliferation of such facilities, and people who decide to build and develop them should be clear about the revenue consequences. Obtaining the capital is only one aspect — getting the revenue to run the centres from year to year is the hard part. There is a tendency in many proposals to overestimate the visitor count. The Navan Centre visitor count was estimated at around 150,000, yet it never attracted more than 50,000 — therein lies the centre’s difficulty.

Mr Jim Shannon: One of the major visitor amenities in Northern Ireland is Derry’s walls, and that is not only when the Apprentice Boys attend their parade in the Maiden City. Will the Minister indicate the capital and revenue funding that the walls will receive this year, so that the figure of 90,000 tourists that visited the venue last year can be increased?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The Derry walls are the responsibility of the Environment and Heritage Service of the Department of the Environment. The Department plays a part in attracting visitors by promoting cultural diversity and through support for the Maiden City Festival, which, through the Apprentice Boys’ march, features Derry’s walls. The Department plays a part, but the question would have been better put to the Department of the Environment, which is more responsible.

Visual Arts Museum

Dr Ian Adamson: 4. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure whether there has been any consideration of providing a visual arts museum at the Ulster Museum site.
(AQO1415/01)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland’s (MAGNI) ‘Opening Horizons’ document identified the need for a museum that would encompass all creative arts, not another gallery displaying rows of paintings. The Department and MAGNI continue to discuss the best way to achieve that need, which could result in a visual arts museum at the Ulster Museum site.

Dr Ian Adamson: This is a follow up to my question AQO 128/99 of 7 February 2000 on the creation of a creative arts museum. Will the Minister consider implementing the "string of pearls" idea throughout Northern Ireland, using such Belfast sites as the Crumlin Road Courthouse and Jail, the Ormeau Baths Gallery and the Engine Room Gallery on the Newtownards Road?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I recall the question and the response to Dr Adamson. There is an argument that there is a so-called string of pearls in Belfast; the other argument is that there is a cluster. We support MAGNI’s strategy, a key part of which will be the museum of sea and sky, which relates directly to east Belfast and to the opportunities that are opening up around the Titanic Quarter — the slipways, the drawing office and the Thompson dry dock. That seems to be a productive way forward for the museum sector.
A £60 million flagship national art gallery was discussed, but that will be beyond the means of the devolved Administration for the foreseeable future. An extension to the Stranmillis building could provide a site for such a gallery. Other ideas can be advanced, but we must consider the capital and resource implications and be certain that we will get the visitors through the doors to avoid the need for constant subventions.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Many private conversations are being held on all sides of the House. Please bear in mind that that is not only discourteous to the Minister, but it makes it difficult for the questioner to hear the answer.

Financial Assistance for Groups

Mrs Annie Courtney: 5. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, in view of the lack of European Structural Fund (ESF) funding to many groups, including the Inner City Trust and the Playhouse in the Derry City Council area, to give a commitment, in the short term, to provide financial assistance to some of these groups.
(AQO1451/01)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: As no additional funds have been set aside, I cannot make a commitment to provide further financial assistance to groups within the Derry City Council area; however, my Department has funded various groups there. In the past three years, £2 million has been awarded to arts projects through the Arts Council and direct from the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. Furthermore, last year over £200,000 was awarded to groups through the Department’s cultural diversity grants programme.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I thank the Minister for his response, which I probably anticipated. The Playhouse has a unique history; it provides an extensive view of the arts through innovative programmes. Therefore, I hoped that in this financial year there would be a commitment to provide funding to tide it over during a difficult part of its history.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I appreciate Mrs Courtney’s concerns, and I understand exactly why she holds them. However, her question relates to the lack of European structural funding — in effect, the gap. Unfortunately, resources for the arts are limited. It is difficult to fund gaps, although the Executive have recently tried to do so. There is constant funding.
The Inner City Trust has received funding, and the Playhouse in the Derry City Council area has received funding to the tune of £266,000. There has been support in the past, but it would be wrong of me to hold out hope that the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure can step in and provide gap funding for groups that are in difficulties as a result of the lack of ESF funding.

Mr Boyd Douglas: Does the Minister agree that Derry City Council should manage its finances better, so that it could give extra finance to those facilities, rather than give the Bloody Sunday Trust a large amount of money to the detriment of other voluntary and social groups in the wider council area?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: That is a matter for Derry City Council. I am not aware of how much money has gone to the Bloody Sunday Trust. The ratepayers and the electorate in the city need to ask those questions. Mrs Courtney illustrated perfectly the difficulties that several groups face over a very small amount of money. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure cannot support those groups, and the council needs to look carefully at how it can support them — if it is not already doing so.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Does the Minister agree that the community and voluntary organisations committed to promoting culture and the arts in designated TSN areas will not benefit from Peace II because the criteria have been skewed to favour the private business sector?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I am not saying that I agree or disagree. That question is outside my remit and should be directed at another Minister.

Disabled Sports Funding

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 6. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to outline the total funding allocated for disabled sports in the last five financial years; and to make a statement.
(AQO1430/01)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The Sports Council is responsible for distributing funding for sport, including disabled sports, and the total funding allocated for disabled sports in the past five financial years was £409,000. That may not sound a significant sum, but well over half of that total, £223,000, was allocated in the last year. I will continue to do my utmost to secure further additional funds for disabled sport.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: The Special Olympics will be held in Ireland next year, the first time that they will have been held outside America. Will the Minister say what the Sports Council is doing to encourage people with disabilities to participate in sport, so that they will be able to compete in next year’s Olympics?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: My Department has bid for £1·2 million from the Executive programme funds to support the Special Olympics. We are playing a part in the host towns’ process and the torch run, and an event is taking place in Belfast. The Sports Council supports athletes with disabilities, and the Department and the Sports Council want to increase participation and access.
I do not have details of the funding for athletes taking part in next year’s Special Olympics. However, a series of programmes is under way, and Disability Sports NI, which was set up with Sports Council guidance, runs many of them and promotes athletes with disabilities. We are producing a strategic plan for Disability Sports NI, and funding has been offered. The Sports Council has always funds for disability access and so on, but I will see what more can be done.

Cultural Diversity

Mr Alex Maskey: 9. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what strategy he will develop to explore how cultural diversity can be creatively addressed.
(AQO1429/01)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: My Department has played a key role in promoting cultural diversity through, for example, the Diversity 21 programme, and its cultural diversity grants programme. The need for a wider cultural diversity policy was identified in the arts and culture vision document ‘Face to Face’. The Department has begun the process of gathering information to help shape a cultural diversity strategy. The process is in the early stages of development and will include specific proposals for action to extend the Department’s cultural diversity activities in line with the recommendations set out in ‘Face to Face’.

Mr Alex Maskey: The Minister will be aware that there has been a re-emergence of some difficulties in interface areas, even in his constituency of South Belfast. Will he assure us that he will seek to work on community relations with representatives from such areas to allow those strategies to be developed in a meaningful way that will have a tangible and positive impact on interface areas?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Responsibility for interface areas, and the issue that Mr Maskey has just raised, lies with the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The principle behind the cultural diversity programme is increased understanding across communities. The development and implementation of a cultural diversity policy is being advanced. Work is under way to develop the policy and is informed by what is happening on the ground and the role that we can play.
Culture shapes us and makes us what we are. To deny somebody’s culture is to try and deny their existence. That is one of the elements that is in play on the Ormeau Road, where a cultural right is being denied. Denying the rights of the Orange culture in south Belfast and Ballynafeigh is effectively a way of saying that people have no right to exist in that area. That type of message promotes difficulties at interface areas. Increasing understanding across communities, difficult though that is, is worth striving for. We need everybody to work towards that. Many of the problems in interface areas have nothing to do with cultural differences. Rather, they have more to do with territory and, perhaps, organisations that are involved with those territories.

Library Materials

Mr Barry McElduff: 10. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to make a statement on the current level of expenditure on materials purchased by libraries in (a) English; (b) Irish; and (c) Ulster Scots.
(AQO1452/01)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The information cannot be provided for those categories of materials. However, through the electronic libraries project and the introduction of a new library management system, the information should become available. Education and library boards’ policy is to provide stock that meets local demand, and, therefore, the amount and nature of material varies between libraries.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an Aire as a fhreagra.
The Minister will not be surprised to learn that my primary reason for posing the question is to address the inadequate provision of Irish language materials in libraries. The Minister does not need to be reminded of his statutory duty to promote the Irish language across all departmental services. Will he make a commitment to recognise, in terms of library provision, the growth in the Irish-medium sector of education and the general increasing interest in the Irish language, and ask for details to remedy the underprovision in our libraries?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: This year, £1·7 million will be spent on books and materials for our libraries. Mr McElduff asked about the breakdown of expenditure on materials in English, Irish and Ulster Scots. He will not be surprised to hear that the overwhelming majority of the money will be spent on English language material because that is where the demand lies — that is what is being used. However, there is specialist demand in some libraries for Irish material, just as there is for Ulster Scots material.
At the moment, the difficulty lies in identifying that need, library by library. Under the electronic libraries for Northern Ireland (ELFNI) project, we will be able to do that. However, it will be no surprise to the Member that there is little or no demand in Newtownards library for materials in Irish, just as there would be little demand for Ulster-Scots material in Coalisland library. We look to meet the demands of library users and to increase the use of libraries.
We take our responsibilities seriously. Foras na Gaeilge is responsible for promoting the Irish language. It is funded by, and answerable to, the Assembly, as is Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch. Those matters are being addressed. The argument for extra resources can be made across a huge range of needs. However, we have made strides.

Mr Ken Robinson: Does the Minister agree that there must be a more conjoined and proactive approach by his Department and the Department of Education if Ulster Scots is to be accorded the equality of status it was promised in the Belfast Agreement?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch has responsibility for the promotion of Ulster Scots and has made great advances in language and culture, and in the building of Ulster-Scots groups. However, there is still a great deal of work to do. There are matters that can be discussed with the Department of Education and, in particular, the education and library boards. It seems to me that there is a demand for Ulster-Scots language and culture in several schools. I see that demand on a regular basis, and I am sure the Member does also. I am sure that the Department of Education will take that demand seriously and examine how our young people can be better informed.

Agriculture and Rural Development

Vision Action Plan

Mr P J Bradley: 1. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development when she expects to publish the vision action plan; and to make a statement.
(AQO1442/01)

Ms Brid Rodgers: In early March I announced my acceptance of 11 measures, recommended in the vision report, which could be implemented without additional resources. I have also made budget bids in respect of recommendations on the environment, strengthening the food chain, developing people, animal health, research and development and rural development. Those recommendations were widely supported in the consultation exercise and were capable of being turned quickly into policy proposals. I am now working on an action plan, which I hope to be able to publish in late June or early July.

Mr P J Bradley: The vision plan calls for radical change in the industry. Does the Department also need to change?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The vision exercise is one of several strands of work that are coming together and that highlight the need to examine the Department’s structures. Others include our commitment to e-business, the review of education and research and development, the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy and the independent review of our handling of the foot-and-mouth disease crisis, as well as major policy reviews on tuberculosis, brucellosis, forestry and fisheries.
To meet those pressures, I have commissioned officials to undertake an internal departmental modernisation programme. That will involve a review of our aims, priorities and strategy to ensure that they reflect not only the outcome of the vision exercise, but also a more modern approach, better suited to the developing needs of our customers and the wider society.

Mr Jim Shannon: Has the Minister decided to establish a food body, as recommended in the vision action plan? If so, when will that body come into being?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The Member may be aware that I have set up a working group, as recommended by the vision report, to examine whether there should be a food body, and if so, what its remit should be. I expect that group to report by the end of June. I will make a decision on the food body depending on what arises from the report.

Mrs Joan Carson: What consideration have the Minister and the Department given to supporting projects such as Taste of Ulster in the vision plan in order to promote Northern Ireland produce?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am not sure whether there has been any reference in the report to projects such as Taste of Ulster, but the Department assesses projects on their merit. Recently we funded Taste of Ulster at the fisheries exhibition in Brussels. We examine projects individually, and we support projects as we see fit. We are awaiting a business plan from those behind Taste of Ulster.

Kilkeel Harbour

Mr Eddie McGrady: 2. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what steps she is taking to provide funding for the development of a new pier at Kilkeel harbour.
(AQO1457/01)

Ms Brid Rodgers: A new pier at Kilkeel harbour would form part of the proposals for the redevelopment of the harbour. The total cost has been put at around £30 million. Completion of technical studies, including work on the design and wave climate of the proposed new outer harbour, will allow assessment of the feasibility of the proposals. In addition, the scope to pursue that as a public-private partnership must be explored, and the project must be subject to an economic appraisal. No formal request for funding has been made by the Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority. Such a request would have to compete against other bids for support. It is too early to indicate if and when funding will be made available.

Mr Eddie McGrady: The new Kilkeel harbour project has been a long saga. I am somewhat surprised by one aspect of the Minister’s reply regarding the Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority. The authority told me that it has inadequate funding to pursue the matter. That is a fairly large gap in the programme, but many studies have been carried out over the years, and consultation has taken place with the onshore and offshore fishing interests. Is there any timescale to allow Kilkeel and other harbours to modernise in order to compete in a difficult market, which is becoming increasingly more difficult for our Northern Ireland fishing fleet and its onshore add-on value factories?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Specific provision is made in the Department for harbour development schemes. That enables the Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority to access funds, subject to satisfactory economic appraisal of need and business cases. In addition, resources including match-funding from the Department are available under the current round of European structural funds. My officials have been in close contact with the Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority in connection with three aspects of work to Kilkeel harbour that the authority has identified as priority projects for the safety and continued viability of port users. I have therefore advanced those projects for funding under the current initiative, which was negotiated recently by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister with the Treasury, and the Executive programme funds. However, they will have to be considered alongside other competing priorities.
I also looked to the review of the fishing industry which I announced earlier this year, and which I expect to launch shortly, to consider and advise on the longer-term aspects of the strategic development of the fishing industry in Northern Ireland, including the appropriate infrastructure to promote and support the industry in a safe and forward-looking manner.

E-government Initiatives

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 3. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to report on progress in her Department in introducing e-government initiatives.
(AQO1450/01)

Ms Brid Rodgers: For some time my Department has been making progress on introducing e-government initiatives in several areas that can change how business is conducted between the Department and its customers. My Department is engaged in progressing several reviews and initiatives to enable it to meet more effectively the challenges of the agrifood industry and the wider needs of rural communities in the new millennium.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: What electronic services are available for farmers who apply for farm subsidies?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Over the past two years, data held on the Department’s cattle database — APHIS Online — has increasingly been used to preprint animal details on subsidy application forms, and that helps to reduce the administrative burden on farmers. Over 43% of farmers now have their subsidies paid directly into their bank accounts, which is speedier, more secure and more convenient than payable order.
Work is under way to facilitate the submission of applications for farm subsidies via the Internet. Our aim is that applicants under the 2003 sheep annual premium will be able to submit their application in this way. The online claim facility will then be rolled out progressively to other schemes over the next two years. A wide range of information about farm subsidies, including blank application forms, is already available on the grants and subsidies web site.
The rural portal web site forms a central part of the Department’s e-government strategy. It provides farmers and growers with a single signposted access point to online information and services. It provides a one-stop shop for the farming community, enabling many services to be accessed from home. To date, about 9,000 farmers have been able to access these services on computer, and the aim is that all farmers will be able to access it by 2005. We will also enable farmers to reskill and to up-skill to do that.

Mr Edwin Poots: The Programme for Government is committed to making 100% of key services available online. Does the Minister regard all the services provided to farmers by her Department as being key services, or are some areas excluded?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The Department of Agriculture is on target in its commitment to the Programme for Government. Nine thousand farmers, roughly one third, have access to online services. By 2005 we hope that farmers can access all online services and that all will avail of it. Farmers who do not wish to use online services may continue to use paper.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I welcome the Minister’s progress on e-government. Surely it is another way of including townland names in her customers’ addresses, as these are all in the countryside?

Mr Donovan McClelland: That is stretching supplementary questions a bit too far. Mr Francie Molloy is not in the Chamber, so question 4 will fall.

Local Produce

Mr Mick Murphy: 5. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what steps she is taking to promote (a) the purchase of local agricultural produce in Northern Ireland; and (b) the export of local produce to EU and non-EU countries.
(AQO1456/01)

Ms Brid Rodgers: I have provided financial support of £1·5 million to market Northern Ireland red meat for its quality, and £400,000 has been earmarked for marketing in the pig sector. In addition, my schedule of visits is planned to lend support to local producers and food companies. I regularly attend major events such as international food fairs, the Balmoral Show and Ireland’s International Food, Drink and Catering Exhibition (IFEX). I have actively participated in campaigns to promote local produce run by the Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU), retailers and the Livestock and Meat Commission for Northern Ireland (LMC).
I have also met with major food retailers in Northern Ireland to encourage greater use of locally sourced produce. Under the Northern Ireland Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity I have recently launched a joint marketing initiative promotion scheme for fisheries and a marketing of quality agricultural products grants scheme to assist the food industry in marketing and promoting its products. One of my main priorities is to enable the resumption of Northern Ireland beef exports. I am pressing the EU Commission to relax the conditions of the date-based export scheme to make it more commercially viable for meat plants that wish to export beef.

Mr Mick Murphy: How many farmers have applied for the schemes under the rural development programme? In order to promote local produce, will the Minister encourage people to ask where the food that they purchase in supermarkets, shops, restaurants and other food outlets has been produced?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I cannot give the Member a detailed response on the take up of schemes because some of the schemes have been introduced and others have not. However, I will inform the Member as soon as I have the figures. I use every opportunity to encourage people to purchase local produce. In particular, I encourage housewives and house husbands, when they do their shopping, to enquire at the meat and vegetable stalls whether the food is sourced in Northern Ireland.

Mr George Savage: The Minister knows that in the drive to boost local purchase of Northern Ireland produce it is important to educate the public about the quality and standards of the food that they eat. In the light of a previous answer that the Minister gave me, which revealed that beef labelling rules do not apply to processed foods such as sausages, pies and canned beef, will she consider introducing a voluntary labelling scheme for Northern Ireland-sourced processed produce, so that a local campaign based on high-quality content may be mounted?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The Member is aware that the EU regulates beef labelling. A voluntary labelling scheme would be just that — voluntary. People would not be required to participate in it. Food labelling is a matter for the Food Standards Agency.

Mr Joe Byrne: Given what the Minister has said on that issue, does she agree that there is great concern about some imported products — derived from chicken and beef — that end up in the catering trade, where there are not the same stringent conditions on food quality? Does she agree that Government purchasing departments should be sensitive to quality issues implicit in the use of imported food products?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am aware of local industry concerns about food safety. However, I assure the Member that all imported foods must be checked and certified by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. I would encourage caterers — and have done so publicly — to use locally sourced and locally produced foods in the catering industry.

Rural Development

Mr Alex Maskey: 6. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what support she has given to women in the context of rural development.
(AQO1428/01)

Ms Brid Rodgers: Under the capacity-building element of the Northern Ireland Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity delivered by the rural community networks there will be opportunities for rural women to develop the skills, knowledge and experience that they need to play a part in the significant economic, environmental and social changes that are impacting on rural areas. Under the same programme the local regeneration programme delivered by the Rural Development Council and the Rural Development Division provides opportunities for women’s groups and organisations, among others, to bring forward proposals for consideration. Those proposals can have an economic, social or environmental focus or combine elements of all three. Several women’s organisations and other bodies have submitted applications to the Rural Development Council for consideration, and those are currently being processed.
The LEADER+ programme is a special EU community initiative designed to encourage and assist the rural community to develop its own areas in accordance with its own needs. Women comprise one of the priority target groups on which LEADER+ will focus. The LEADER action groups will submit their business plans for approval shortly. I anticipate that those will feature various initiatives targeted at women, with a particular focus on microbusiness.
The Rural Development Division is working with the Women’s Resource Development Agency, the Rural Community Network and rural women’s networks in carrying out an analysis to assess the needs of rural women. That work is being completed, and I look forward to the outcome.

Mr Alex Maskey: Several sources of funding and other levels of support have been mentioned. The Minister is aware that many organisations are in danger of collapse because of a lack of funding. The rural women’s network, which recently made a presentation to the Committee of the Centre, is one example. What specific measures will the Minister’s Department be taking to give leadership to the rural women’s network and other rural women’s organisations?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am aware of these matters. My officials and representatives from the Women’s Resource Development Agency and the rural women’s network will be meeting consultants in early June to address the concerns that the Member has raised, and I know of the concerns about core funding.

Returns for Local Producers

Mr Gerry McHugh: 7. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what progress has been made in ensuring that local producers get a fair return on their produce from (a) meat processors; and (b) large supermarket chains; and to make a statement.
(AQO1454/01)

Ms Brid Rodgers: The question of fair returns is essentially a commercial matter between producers, processors and retailers. However, the long-term interests of the industry lie in effective partnerships between all parts of the food chain. I encourage the industry to develop such partnerships to ensure that a transparent and fair price is paid for Northern Irish meat.
To help the industry obtain the best return for its output, a range of support is available to assist with improvement in quality and marketing performance. For example, to ensure that Northern Irish beef is marketed to best advantage, I have provided £1·5 million of support to the Red Meat Strategy, which was developed between all parts of the industry and the relevant Department.
An important part of the strategy is to focus on premium markets that can provide a premium return for our beef. However, to service those markets, we must produce top-quality cattle. There has been a decline in the quality of finished cattle in recent years, and to reverse that trend, I have secured £2 million a year under the Programme for Government for a Beef Quality Initiative.
Following claims that the price differential between Northern Ireland and GB pigs was due to differences in quality, I commissioned a study which showed that there is room for improvement in the confirmation of Northern Irish pig carcasses, and officials will be working with the industry to address that. Some of the funds that I have allocated to support marketing in the pig sector are being used to improve quality.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Does the Minister agree that, to gain a fair price for farmers and primary producers, the implementation of the £1·5 million strategy, which includes the Beef Quality Initiative, depends on farmers getting paid for producing quality beef? They have not been paid for that until now. In the vision exercise, could further gains be made by focusing more on farmer co-operatives to increase the strength of primary producers?

Ms Brid Rodgers: There is support for farmers’ co-operatives. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has facilitated and supported farmers’ attempts to form co-operatives, and it continues to do so.

Mr Tom Hamilton: Will the Minister establish a fair-pricing investigation into the real distribution of profits in the agrifood sector, and follow up the results with a fair practice pricing code? Such a code would enable consumers to identify products that had generated a fair return for farmers and other primary producers.

Ms Brid Rodgers: Fair pricing is a reserved matter; therefore, it is not the Northern Ireland Assembly’s responsibility. The Competitions Commission investigated the allegation that processors were not offering fair prices and found no evidence of what were purported to be unfair practices by them.

"Closed Herds"

Mr Gardiner Kane: 8. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development whether she has considered rewarding the owners of "closed herds" by allowing higher rates of compensation in the event of a tuberculosis or brucellosis outbreak.
(AQO1420/01)

Ms Brid Rodgers: Under current legislation the Department can pay compensation only for animals that it slaughters because of tuberculosis (TB) or brucellosis. The Government have no provision or precedent for compensating any other losses, and I have no plans to introduce any.

Mr Gardiner Kane: Does the Minister foresee the introduction of a financial package designed to encourage the establishment of more "closed herds" in Northern Ireland? Such a package would include double-fencing to prevent contact with neighbouring herds, and assistance with trials of vaccines against bovine tuberculosis infection. Does the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development value the concept of "closed herds" as a tool to prevent the spread of tuberculosis and brucellosis?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I have no plans for such a package. "Closed herds" are not an official concept; some farmers operate them as a precaution, which I welcome. However, I urge all farmers to play their part in assisting us to fight brucellosis. Through the Department’s veterinary services, the measures that it has taken and its review, it will do everything possible to reduce the incidence of brucellosis and to eradicate it. That can be done only with the co-operation of farmers.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. My Colleague, Councillor Mickey McAnespie, and I recently met farmers in the Carrickmore and wider mid-Tyrone area who are anxious about the unduly high incidences of TB among cattle. Local farmers believe that not enough is being done to identify and eradicate the root cause of the problem. Will the Minister meet a representative group of mid-Tyrone farmers to hear their concerns so that she can take appropriate action, or will she task her officials to do so?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I assure Mr McElduff that I am aware of the areas where there is a worrying growth in the incidence of TB.
The Department is taking the increase seriously, and a review of its policy on TB and how its eradication measures can be improved is being finalised. I meet the farming unions regularly to discuss the issue, but if Members wish to meet me to discuss specific issues, I will consider their requests.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Question 9 is in the name of Mr Gibson, but he is not in the Chamber.

Modernisation Programme

Mr Alban Maginness: 10. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what measures have been taken to initiate the modernisation programme in her Department; and to make a statement.
(AQO1443/01)

Ms Brid Rodgers: I announced my intention to initiate a major internal modernisation programme in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in my speech at the International Food, Drink and Catering Exhibition (IFEX). This will include a review of the Department’s aims, priorities and structures to ensure that they are best suited to the developing needs of its customers and of society, and I have created a modernisation unit in the Department to advance it. The unit is headed at assistant secretary level and reports directly to the departmental management board.

Mr Alban Maginness: Why has the Minister decided to initiate this modernisation programme?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The vision report, among other things, highlighted the need for the agrifood industry to change in response to current challenges and opportunities. It would be unthinkable to expect the industry to change without also examining the Department. The Department’s structures and working methods have been in place for decades, during which there have been many changes in the industry and in the Department’s responsibilities.
Several other strands of work are coming together that have highlighted the need for restructuring. They include the Department’s commitment to e-business; the O’Hare Report on the Department’s education and R&D provision; the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy; the independent review of the Department’s handling of the foot-and-mouth disease crisis; and major policy reviews on tuberculosis, brucellosis, forestry and fisheries. With all of that coming together, it would not make sense for the Department to fail to determine how its structures can best suit the needs of the changing modern industry.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The time for questions to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development is up.
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Deputy Speaker.]

The Impact of the Aggregates Tax on Businesses in Fermanagh and South Tyrone

Mr Tommy Gallagher: The quarry tax is one of the most substantial threats ever faced by our economy. I acknowledge the work that the current Minister of Finance and Personnel, Dr Farren, his predecessor, Mark Durkan, and the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Sir Reg Empey, have done to find an alternative to it. The Executive have put their weight behind the effort to persuade the Treasury to rethink its position on the quarry tax in Northern Ireland. The efforts to date have achieved a deferral on processed products such as concrete blocks and ready-mixed concrete. That is a useful concession.
In Fermanagh and South Tyrone, 1,000 people are dependent on the quarry industry for their livelihoods. However, since 1 April, the quarry tax has been levied on stones, gravel and sand. The demand for those products from quarries in the constituency has dropped dramatically already. I have figures that show a drop in output of 40% in some quarries, and in one, a drop of 74%, based on an average output of the same materials over the past three years.
Traditionally, this is the time of year when the demand for quarry products increases. It is a busy time for the construction industry and on farms. Farmers buy large quantities of stone for drainage work and the construction of farm roads. Since 1 April, a great deal of the material for such work has been brought across the border. The substitution of materials from quarries in the South for those from our own quarries demonstrates how ill-advised the introduction of the tax is in Northern Ireland.
The Treasury says that imported stone is also subject to a levy of £1·60 a tonne. However, everyone knows that although that seems to be the case on paper, the reality is different. The levy cannot and will not be enforced because Customs and Excise does not have the manpower to enforce it. We know from our experience with the fuel tax that Customs and Excise does not have the resources to ensure that this tax is applied.
The aggregates tax was supposed to achieve environmental improvements. However, in our case, it will not achieve those, and it is not hard to see why the initiative will fail to have the desired effect. We know from our travels through counties across the border, such as Donegal and Cavan, that, just as there are many quarries along and close to the border on the Northern side, there are also many quarries along and close to the border on the Southern side. As the volume of material extracted from quarries on this side of the border decreases, there will be a corresponding increase in the volume of material extracted a short distance away in the South. As a result, there will be no environmental gain. In that context, the aggregates tax cannot be justified for Northern Ireland. It is a punitive measure that will lead to the closure of quarries and the loss of jobs if it is not stopped.
The Chancellor cannot ignore the wishes of the Assembly — an elected body that is accountable to the people of Northern Ireland. He cannot ignore the Assembly’s concern about the effect of the quarry tax on border areas and the entire industry throughout Northern Ireland. There is a more effective way to address the environmental issues associated with the quarrying industry, and that is through North/South arrangements. There is a need for harmonisation and a level playing field for the industry, North and South. Through North/ South co-operation, we can arrive at a better outcome that will safeguard the quarry industry, protect the environment and stabilise our rural communities.
Members must remember that these border communities have not yet benefited from the peace dividend. It is well known that the fuel tax has devastated the economy in those areas. It has resulted in the closure of almost all the filling stations and many small shops in rural areas. Those areas have borne the brunt of the fuel tax, and they are now to be hammered again by an ill-conceived Treasury initiative. I ask Members for their support, and to call on Gordon Brown to abandon the aggregates tax.

Mr Sam Foster: This is a big issue, and it has been going on for a while now. When I was the Minister of the Environment, I remember writing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the issue is an environmental one. I also met some quarry owners and the secretary of their association at the Killyhevlin Hotel in Enniskillen last year. The impact of the aggregates tax will be devastating, and I am glad, therefore, to see this Adjournment debate take place. I look forward to seeing some positive action being taken to address the problem.
The matter can be approached from both an economic and an environmental point of view, which I shall endeavour to do. First, I shall set the scene. Quarry producers have lobbied for a long time on the issue, and many meetings have taken place between our Ministers and the Treasury in London. Despite gallant efforts, the tax was introduced, albeit with a tax break for one year, which is a slight easement. However, the industry is a significant exporter to the Republic of Ireland, with as much as 90% of production from some plants being sold across the border. Export markets account for one third of asphalt produced in Northern Ireland, 50% to 70% of pre-fabricated concrete, and 30% to 40% of production from firms on the border, which can rise as high as 90% at times.
I have statistics for one company in Belcoo, County Fermanagh. In May 2001, its quarry was outputting 627 tonnes, but this year the figure has reduced dramatically to 119 tonnes — a decrease of 508 tonnes. That figure accounts for only one month. It is estimated that hundreds of jobs are at risk — up to 1,000 jobs in Tyrone and more than 700 in Fermanagh could be lost. To develop Northern Ireland’s economy, the industry is essential for construction, housing, and road construction, on which we are embarking. Over one year, it is estimated that the tax will reduce the output of aggregate from this quarry by more than 100,000 tonnes.
The aggregates tax, which was only introduced on 1 April 2002, is already having a major impact on the industry, and, as a result, job losses will follow. This Belcoo firm has predicted that up to 15 workers will have to be made redundant, which is a lot of people in a small rural area. Many of those jobs are located in rural communities that are designated as TSN areas. The problem lies in the fact that buyers are now going to quarries across the border to avoid paying the £1·60-a-tonne aggregates tax.
One quarry firm, Acheson & Glover, estimate that between 400 and 500 tonnes of aggregate material is to be moved from the Republic into Northern Ireland via Belcoo every week. Surely the Government can see the grave effect that that has on the industry. Quarries from the South of Ireland are supposed to register with Customs and Excise; however, that is not happening and they are avoiding paying the tax. Therefore, a main issue is the fact that a level playing field does not operate — there is unfair competition. The situation would be eased if quarries in the South had to pay the tax, because it would mean that buyers would not have the advantage of crossing the border to purchase aggregate.
I shall now approach the debate from an environmental perspective. The Treasury claims that the main purpose behind the tax’s introduction is to address the environmental costs associated with quarrying operations, such as noise and dust. That objective cannot be faulted. However, when one looks at the effect that the tax is having, one will see that, environmentally, the situation is deteriorating. We may ask how that is the case. As more buyers travel to the Republic of Ireland to buy their materials, it means that transportation takes longer. As a result, there will be an increase in CO2 emissions and, therefore, atmospheric pollution. Moreover, additional health costs may be incurred as the number of asthma sufferers in the rural border regions increases.
The second environmental point to note is that Northern Ireland cannot generate large volumes of recyclable material compared with Great Britain. The vast majority of available construction waste is recycled in an effective manner. Therefore, it is clear that the environmental argument for this tax being in place is nonsense when its impact is examined carefully.
I want to take this opportunity to urge Departments to encourage major public buyers of these materials to buy only from bona fide suppliers — those who have paid the aggregates tax. If that were to happen, it would transform the situation overnight and safeguard thousands of jobs in my constituency.
With a tax rate of £1·60 a tonne, Republic of Ireland producers will be able to haul their product 20 to 25 miles to compete on a local producer’s doorstep. Republic of Ireland product will flood any area within 20 miles of the border. Exports from Northern Ireland to the Republic, which once flourished, will become a thing of the past. Our Government must take cognisance of this frightening imposition, which is disastrous to the quarry industry.
I seek Government change in this process; otherwise, we lose an industry that has contributed so much to the economy over many years. I support the aim of asking the Government to appreciate the difficulties of a land boundary. Across the water it is not appreciated that we have a land boundary with another state and, therefore, the situation is not understood. This tax is a real burden; there must be another way. I support Mr Gallagher on this issue.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I too give my support. I thank Tommy Gallagher for having the foresight to bring the matter before the Assembly today. It is an emotive issue across Northern Ireland but especially in border areas. Those of us who live in, and represent, those constituencies have first-hand knowledge of the impact that the implementation of this aggregates tax will have.
Throughout Northern Ireland, the aggregates industry employs around 6,000 people. Potentially, up to 1,000 of those jobs could be lost as a result of the implementation of the aggregates tax. It is completely out of proportion, because the impact will be felt most strongly in the border constituencies, especially Fermanagh and South Tyrone, as Tommy Gallagher has rightly said.
I listened carefully to Mr Gallagher; he called for co-operation with the South on this matter. However, when the issue is examined more closely, it will be found that the real competition comes from the South of Ireland. I am sure that Mr Gallagher is aware of that. Our jobs and our industry will be lost to the South of Ireland if something is not done.
This is not a devolved matter. I am delighted to see the Minister here today. I thank him for taking an interest in the matter, and I have no doubt that he will adopt a hands-on approach to do what he can. The Assembly will be grateful to him for doing so and for the attitude that he has adopted. Nevertheless, it must be recognised that even if he wanted to do something tomorrow — and if it were entirely in his control and brief to do so, he undoubtedly would — unfortunately, he could not do so. This is not a devolved matter; it is a matter for London. If I can say anything constructive about that, I ask the Minister to continue to make representation to ensure that the impact that will be felt here is minimised as much as possible.
Sam Foster quoted some accurate figures about job losses and the potential loss in Northern Ireland, especially along the Fermanagh and Tyrone border. The average daily output for April was 401 tonnes in 1999, 2000 and 2001. However, in 2002, even before the real impact of the introduction of this tax has been felt, that has reduced to 252 tonnes. The reduction is well over 40%, and the impact on a constituency already facing difficulties will be a loss of jobs and revenue.
The average daily output for May in 1999, 2000 and 2001 was 627tonnes. In 2002 it is 134tonnes. That graphically illustrates the extent of the problem. It has been said that much finance will be generated by the introduction of this tax, but that does not tell the whole story. We were told that Northern Ireland would generate £35million for the Treasury. With a potential loss of 1,000jobs, £35million is a hefty price to pay: the net gain will be virtually nothing, and the revenue to those towns and villages along the border will also be affected, particularly in Fermanagh and south Tyrone.
This is an emotive issue. We must plead with London and explain that this is not a level playing field and that work will be diverted across the border where it will be cheaper. It is reckoned that when the aggregates tax is fully introduced, it will put about £2,000 on the price of a new house.
The knock-on effect will be devastating. It will have an impact on road-building schemes, and Departments will have to compete in an unfair way. SamFoster referred to that when he said that London does not fully realise that there is a land border, and the implications and impact that that will have in the coming years will be devastating. I agree with what has been said.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat. I too agree with all that has been said. It will bring to the attention of the Minister and others that, although they cannot do something directly about it, they cannot allow the case to be lost by default. It must not become less important — it is very important for the reasons given.
Those problems are of primary importance in areas such as Fermanagh and Tyrone where there is an abundance of quarries and great dependence on such industries. Those areas depend heavily on agriculture and tourism, both of which have been in decline in the last couple of years — especially agriculture. This is important to those who live in that part of the North. Last year the Assembly voted unanimously for Ministers to make representations to the Treasury to try to prevent the tax. It has been said that the tax would raise £35million at the cost of 1,000jobs. The derogation is only putting off the evil day for a short time for those involved.
The aggregates tax is designed to ensure that the negative environmental impacts of quarrying are reflected in the price, and to encourage producers to use recycled materials. Members have said that we do not have an abundance of materials to recycle and that we have not been using aggregates to any great extent compared to England, where the tax has been brought about by the green lobby. Our difficulties have been outlined. There is unfair competition across the border, which goes directly against the objectives of the tax, and the green lobby should take that into account.
It does not take that into account when writing to us or when making representations. The lobby hopes that the Ministers, and others, will stand to on the matter and that we will be forced to deal with it ourselves.
The tax is unlikely to have significant use. The difficulty is that we do not use the alternatives — unlike large urban areas in Britain, which have large brownfield sites, abundant demolished material and a different landscape to ours.
No business can make strategic plans on the basis of what is essentially a one-year stay of execution. Adequate breathing space must be given if jobs are not to be lost. Quarry owners must invest and work proactively, even though the threat of the tax and the uncertainty that surrounds it will deter them from doing so. That will cost jobs, regardless of what happens. We can do nothing about that; we can only say that we will fight on and that the fight is not over. The lack of ongoing investment in lorries, and so on, has negative effects on the environment. Roads are negatively affected when upgrading does not take place.
The Quarry Products Association (QPA) highlighted that the tax of £1·60 per tonne would raise £35·2 million a year in the North, but the potential losses total £61·4 million. That could mean the loss of as many as 4,000 jobs in the North. The ripples caused by the proposed tax levy could impact on all levels of construction. The public will be left to pick up the tab. The introduction of the tax may not simply result in the loss of 1,000 jobs; many quarries, some of which are heavily dependent on aggregate sales, may have no option but to close.
The ripple effect may be felt not only by construction workers but by subsidiary industries, including engineering, that are involved in the quarry industry. All those industries have been severely affected by the agricultural decline in the past few years. Companies such as Finlay Concrete Products, and Acheson & Glover, who supply up to 50% of their products to customers south of the border, will immediately find the market difficult — that is how they will get bitten by the tax. Quarry owners here will point out that they are already subject to the strictest environmental legislation in Europe. There is no significant problem with the quarry industry, despite the fact that one was perceived by green pressure groups such as the Council for the Protection of Rural England, and Friends of the Earth.
Over time, the Government aim to shift the burden of tax from "good" issues, such as labour and capital, to "bad" issues such as pollution. Environmental taxation must meet the general tests of good taxation. It must be well designed and meet objectives without causing undesirable side-effects.
The introduction of the aggregates tax here will not fulfil the objectives of the environmental tax; rather, it will have a detrimental impact on the environment. Extra miles will be travelled, as lower-cost products will be sourced from the South, which will have an impact on the environment. If those building houses or tendering for roads or large projects begin to source aggregates from across the border everyone here will suffer severely. The overall cost of products will be also raised massively for councils, local Departments and those living in border areas who are most dependent on the industry. I support Mr Gallagher on the issue. Go raibh maith agat.
4.30pm

Mr P J Bradley: I have heard nothing with which I disagree in the debate; everything that I have heard I could have said myself. There are several quarries in my constituency of South Down, and they face the same threat as those in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Quarries in County Louth and County Monaghan are only a short distance away, and there is no doubt that the business will go in that direction if the aggregates tax is introduced.
Quarry owners mainly employ rural people whose wages and salaries go back into the rural economy. I can think of several part-time farmers in my constituency who take up quarry work. The reverse can also be the case. Those jobs go hand in hand, and the people who fill them are good employees. The same families have been employed in those businesses for generations. That goes back to the 1950s, and young men are still going into the industry. That tradition would be broken if the aggregates tax were introduced. Any tax on sand, gravel or stone will result in job losses.
I often wonder about the attitude of decision makers in Westminster towards Northern Ireland. Do they act as if we did not exist, or do they impose taxes upon us regardless of the consequences? Do they adopt a "like it or lump it" attitude? They do not consider the land frontier or the threat that such taxes pose to those trying to make a living on this side of the border, and where it would drive customers.
I thank those Members who stayed for the debate and Tommy Gallagher in particular for introducing it. I commend his efforts since the dreaded aggregates tax was first mooted.

Mrs Joan Carson: Much of what I have to say is repetitive; but as a former schoolteacher, I believe that repetition helps to hammer the message home. I thank Mr Gallagher for raising this matter, and I am glad that so many Members from the Fermanagh and South Tyrone constituency have stayed for the debate. I welcome the debate and support its intention.
I understand the thinking behind the Government’s scheme. Its aim is to reduce waste and carbon dioxide emissions and to lessen the impact on the environment. However, like many well-intentioned Government schemes, it is flawed. The aggregates tax was set at £1·60 a tonne in an attempt to persuade the businesses concerned to adopt a recycling agenda and to reduce the extraction of virgin aggregates.
This tax may help businesses in England, Scotland and Wales to think seriously about recycling that does not have an adverse effect on their profits. However, Northern Ireland’s case is completely different. This is the only part of the United Kingdom that has a land border with another European country. That has affected our economy in many ways; its detrimental results have included livestock and fuel smuggling. This tax will put another nail in the coffin of our businesses and industry.
The aggregates tax will be detrimental to businesses in Northern Ireland. The strategy to reduce any environmental impact in this sector of business should be left to the Assembly. Sales of aggregates rocketed in March in an attempt to store up stones and avoid the extra cost. Northern Ireland quarry businesses are doing much to address environmental issues. The quarry industries in Northern Ireland had the highest uptake of any industry of the ISO 1400 environmental standard.
In 2000, there were 1,700 confirmed cases of water pollution. However, only 11 were associated with quarrying.
The quarry business has produced a good code of environmental practice. The majority of available construction waste in Northern Ireland is being recycled. Recycling took place on site for the Odyssey project, for Belfast City Airport and at the Sirocco Works. Our quarry industry should not be penalised for environmental reasons when it has tried its best with environmental initiatives. The Government wish to be assertive on environmental issues but they are ignoring the efforts that our quarry industry has made.
The consequences of the tax must be highlighted: potential clients will seek aggregates products from quarries in the Republic of Ireland because of price and currency differentials. Some quarries in Northern Ireland are within 25 miles of the border, and they will be forced out of business just as petrol stations were. Many jobs will be lost because of that knock-on effect. Grocery stores will be affected if people move when they lose their jobs. The loss of employment will have a detrimental effect on the local economy of Fermanagh because, over the past few years, it has lost much of its industry and its economy has been affected. We must do all we can to retain what is left there.
There will be added effects and costs to departmental schemes, and that was mentioned by MrMorrow. The projected costs for road maintenance will rise by 4%, and road capital schemes will potentially rise by 17%. The environmental cost of the tax will also be high. Quarries in Northern Ireland are close to their markets, and they have an average delivery range of about 10 miles. It has been estimated that that delivery range will double, at least, if customers order from quarries in the Republic. That upsurge in road traffic will increase, not reduce, CO2 emissions and will put more stress on our road infrastructure.
One of the stated aims of the tax was that there would be no effect on the competitiveness of Northern Ireland quarries in international markets. The reverse is the reality. The tax will affect their competitiveness and will encourage increased importation of quarry products from the Republic of Ireland.
The tax discriminates against quarries in Northern Ireland. I urge the Government to abandon this course of action, as it is contrary to the interests of a devolved region of the UK. If the Government want environmental targets to be reached, I hope that it will afford the Northern Ireland Assembly the opportunity of working with the quarry industry to do just that. The issue affects all of Northern Ireland, not just Fermanagh and South Tyrone. It should be within the remit of the Assembly to redress the problem. I support the intention behind the debate.

Dr Sean Farren: I compliment Mr Gallagher for tabling the Adjournment debate, and for raising the important issue of aggregates tax again. I am fully conscious of the interest and concern that he and other Members have in the tax, and particularly in its impact on the local economy. I acknowledge the points that Members have made as regards the impact on the local economy especially in border areas.
I recognise that border areas such as Fermanagh and South Tyrone are at the forefront of problems in price levels and trade flows, given their location and the distortion caused by the tax. However, I wish to highlight some of the progress made on aggregates tax since the issue was first raised in the House in December 2000 and then move on to the nature and direction of future work. It is important to outline some contextual points first.
Aggregates tax is only one of several fiscal measures that have been introduced throughout the United Kingdom. However desirable Members may find it to have discretion over such issues, taxes are an excepted matter. As a result, our ability to influence versions of taxes that reflect the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland is limited. It is critically important that the Executive are engaged from the outset when tax measures that could affect Northern Ireland disproportionately are being considered. I could extend that to all tax measures, insofar as it is possible to include us, because sometimes it is not possible to assess the effect of a tax.
Regrettably, in the instance of the aggregates tax, the interests of Northern Ireland were ignored at the outset. Much effort has been expended to recover the situation, and there is still a long way to go. I am reflecting views that were communicated to officials when it was realised that the aggregates tax would have a negative impact on Northern Ireland. We were not on the radar screen as far as considering the tax’s impact was concerned; we were ignored because we were not considered relevant in any impact assessment.
My predecessor, Mr Durkan, and I have stressed in correspondence with the Treasury that the argument for introducing uniform taxes throughout the United Kingdom is not well founded and that the vision of those in Whitehall must extend beyond the Greater London area. As part of my responsibilities, I have pressed the point, on several occasions, that Northern Ireland shares a land border with another state that is now a member of the euro zone. In the Republic, there is no environmental tax, and that point has been driven home in almost all the contributions.
We have had some success in pressing home our arguments to the Treasury, and I welcome recent comments made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that there is a need for specific Northern Ireland research on aggregates tax. Of course, it would have been much better to conduct the analysis before the implementation of the tax.
Another indication of progress is that last November the Treasury announced in its annual pre-Budget report that, for Northern Ireland only, it intended to phase in over five years the introduction of tax on aggregates used in processing.
4.45pm
I am pleased to inform the Assembly that the measure was recently given state aid approval by the European Commission. It is important to recognise that it is not only London that has to be convinced of our arguments, but Brussels, because Northern Ireland is working increasingly within frameworks that are set down by the European Union, especially with regard to the environment and other matters that I referred to in my statement.
As industry representatives said at the time, that was only a small step, but it was a step in the right direction. Although the Assembly and the Executive can rightly claim some credit for that measure, Members should be reassured by the fact that by no means do my officials or I intend to rest on that point. Much work remains to be done. It is imperative that the Assembly and the Executive act collectively to address urgently the issues at hand.
I want to concentrate now on the present position and on what I hope to achieve in the coming months with regard to the aggregates tax. In welcoming the pre-Budget report measure, I am also aware that the main beneficiary is limited to aggregates used for processing, and that the five-year digressive approach may not be the best for the industry. A working group led by departmental officials has been established. It is engaged in detailed discussions with industry representatives on alternative options. The Minister of the Environment and I had a useful meeting earlier this afternoon with a delegation from the Quarry Products Association. The meeting had already been arranged for today and, therefore, coincided nicely with the debate. Meetings have taken place recently, and they will continue. I am aware from those meetings, and from talking to the delegation earlier today, that the Quarry Products Association appreciates its need to contribute to the protection of the environment. It seeks to work with the Assembly to ensure that those environmental objectives, which we all subscribe to and want to see promoted, can be achieved.
Although wished for by many in the House and outside, complete derogation from the aggregates tax for Northern Ireland appears to be an improbable and unrealistic outcome. Therefore, the Assembly must work within existing parameters. The Treasury has stressed that point on several occasions. The solution will be a matter of balancing the interests of the industry with legitimate concerns about the long-term protection of the environment. That will not be easy. It will involve compromise and a willingness to accept that environmental damage must be mitigated effectively. However, I am encouraged by the willingness of quarry owners to work with the Assembly to ensure that environmental protection measures are put in place.
I continue to acknowledge the real concerns, especially in border constituencies such as Fermanagh and South Tyrone, that have arisen since the introduction of the aggregates tax in April 2002. I have asked departmental officials who lead the aggregates tax working group to continue to monitor the situation and to keep me fully abreast of developments, especially in relation to distortions to trade flow and potential job losses. The aggregates tax is an important Executive priority, and will remain so until a satisfactory solution is found.
As the analysis of the working group identifies a possible way forward, I intend to correspond further with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to help achieve a version of the tax that better reflects the realities of our circumstances, both economic and environmental. What we have achieved to date, however limited it may be, is further evidence of the Assembly and its Executive effecting change for the better. Our combined efforts, together with those of the industry, have enabled us to make a strong case to the Treasury that has had to be answered.
I take the point about engaging with the North/South Ministerial Council, and I will seek advice as to how best we can combat the aggregates tax in that context. I will take an early opportunity to at least raise the issue with whoever is appointed to the finance portfolio in the new Administration in the South. I will meet that Minister in the context of the North/South Ministerial Council’s meeting on European Union programmes in June.
The issue of the responsibility of Customs & Excise was implicitly raised by some Members. I underline the fact that we do not have responsibility for Customs & Excise. The duty of Customs & Excise is to monitor the impact of the tax in Northern Ireland, especially in border areas. Any evidence of tax not being levied on imported aggregate from the South is certainly a worrying development. My officials should be given that information so that they can take it forward with Customs & Excise.
I have addressed most, if not all, of the main points in my response. If other points escaped me, I will respond to Members in writing.
Adjourned at 4.53 pm.